In getting at the real facts in the case I feel that we must bear in mind the increasing proportion of students who come to the colleges of pharmacy directly from grammar, high, or literary schools. Many of them enter pharmacy as a preliminary step to the study of medicine. All of this class of students are among those better prepared for the study of pharmacy. Thus the question of preliminary education is gradually solving itself. It is not likely, however, that the time will ever come when colleges of pharmacy will cease to draw students from the retail drug store, so we should look carefully to that door of entrance to the college. I believe that it is the province and duty of pharmacy laws to regulate drug-store apprenticeship. If prospective apprentices were obliged to pass an examination in the fundamental branches of an English education before being recognized as apprentices the question of preliminary education would be practically settled.

The time is evidently coming, and at no far distant day, when the State pharmacy laws will recognize, as properly qualified applicants for registration, only those who have successfully passed through a college-of-pharmacy training. The college diploma will signify that the candidate is qualified to apply for examination, and the result of the ordeal will determine whether or not his college training has been of such a nature, and his application sufficiently thorough, to admit him to registration as a qualified pharmacist.

I am not one of those who believe that all of the shortcomings in the pharmaceutical profession can be laid at the door of the colleges of pharmacy, on account of their admitting to matriculation applicants whom the teachers would greatly desire to see better qualified in the rudiments of education. While I recognize the While I recognize the value of this previous training, I feel that we are given to looking at it from a theoretical rather than a practical point of view, forgetting that many young men of limited qualifications make good use of their time during the two or more years in college, and graduate better qualified in general education as well as in pharmacy than some of those who enter with much literary education to their credit.

St. Louis, November 6.

FREDERICK J. WULLING, Ph.G., LL.M., F.C.Sc., Dean, Department of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota. I think you do not give sufficient credit to the statement, which you quote a number of colleges as making, to the effect that those pharmacists are debauching their calling who engage uneducated lads, thus opening up to them the possibility and privilege of becoming socalled pharmacists ultimately.

Perhaps I may be pardoned for referring to experience that bears upon this point. The College of Pharmacy of the University of Minnesota, since its

organization in 1892, has been a high-entrance-requirement college, and has refused admission, each year, to an average of 40 per cent of the applicants, because of their lack of academic training. About one-half of those rejected continue their academic studies, and enter when they possess the necessary qualifications. The other half are mostly young men who have been in drug stores for a time, and these, as far as can be ascertained, do not continue their preliminary studies, but usually pass the State board in due time. In other words, the matriculants direct from high-schools, the majority, are superior in intelligence and general fitness to those whom the pharmacists send. It seems to me the time to restrict incompetents is when they desire to enter the profession-the pharmacists are as a rule at this front door and those whom they let in usually remain in. As it is now the boards do not see these young men until they have been in the profession for at least two years; and then they are less likely to retire than they would have been had the pharmacists, in the first instance, refused to engage them until they had acquired a sufficient preliminary education.

You say "The requirement of a high-school education, plus two years of practical experience subsequently acquired, is at the present time the iridescent dream of a hopeless ideal." I cannot agree with you in this opinion. A number of colleges are now, and have for a number of years past, demonstrated that young men are willing to pursue a high-school course, or an equivalent, before entering upon the study of pharmacy.

You say further, "We shall be well content to see all the colleges unite in demanding a sound grammarschool course or its equivalent, with special stress on a thorough grounding in arithmetic, spelling, reading, and writing." I would regard an agreement on such a low standard as very unfortunate, and I would not be a party to it. In my opinion it would cast an odium upon the calling that would be worse than the present deplorable condition. I would hold out for a full high-school training or an equivalent.

Every one informed on the subject of your editorial will agree with you that reforms are necessary in many colleges, but the fact should not be overlooked that reforms outside of them are at least as obligatory and necessary. I am of the conviction that many colleges are unjustly charged with mercenary motives. There is no doubt in my mind, whatever, that the calling is better off by far with them than without them. Minneapolis, November 7.

E. H. SARGENT, Ph.M.

Your criticism of prevailing methods of the colleges of pharmacy, in the November BULLETIN, seems to me just, and ought to be of interest to those who are inter

ested in the education of pharmacists. That you place a large share of responsibility for the inadequate education of the modern drug clerk upon the college methods of the present day is not surprising, in view of the keen competition for so-called students which is shown in the exploiting of unusual inducements to young men incapable of reasoning as to their merits, who are made to believe it is but necessary to seek a college of pharmacy to become proficient in a calling that once was one of the most important and honored in the land.

It is a fact, as you intimate, that the colleges are to-day too largely filled with incompetents, who are unable to receive and profit by the instruction lavishly bestowed upon them by faithful teachers. But it must not be supposed that all the boys entering the college of pharmacy are of the illiterate type. A good proportion, not a majority, however, are bright young men who would be a credit to any school, and who deserve better surroundings. It is a rank injustice to such men to oblige them to receive instruction with a crowd of ignorant dullards.

The possibilities for the bright minority are curtailed by the presence of the weak majority, and in the interest of honest college administration this deplorable condition of affairs should be at once remedied. The obvious remedy is to shut the door of the college to the incompetent, and, as you suggest, to insist upon a better common-school education before admission to the college can be attained. "A sound grammar-school course, or its equivalent, with special stress on a thorough grounding in arithmetic, spelling, reading, and writing" -nothing less-should be demanded, and a careful inquest should be made to ascertain if the candidate can satisfy these requirements. This is not less due to the unfit applicant than to the college; each will be benefited by the "closed door."

I would make another suggestion. It seems to me important if not absolutely essential that the student, in order to acquire adequate benefit from the instruction given, should have a previous experience in a well conducted drug store. He would then be in a position to better understand and absorb the not altogether simple teaching he is to receive. We must not forget that ours is largely a technical occupation; that hands must be educated as well as the head, so that both may work together intelligently.

Much could be written to illustrate the importance, and the personal value to the drug clerk, of a thoroughly sound, usable knowledge of his business, even upon a money basis; not to speak of a higher value as an expert in a necessary professional calling.

I hope your valued effort for better college methods will not be in vain, and that you will continue the crusade until real reform is reached.

Chicago, November 8.

F. W. E. STEDEM, Ph.G.

I have been very much interested in the editorial in the November number, entitled, "This is the Least that the Colleges Owe to Pharmacy." A matter of such importance should not pass unnoticed. Colleges and employers have been entirely too careless in times past, and even at the present, in the selection of material for apprentices. Many plans have been suggested at various times whereby the difficulties might be overcome, but it seems to me that none of them are practical. I believe that the best method to adopt would be to require the apprentice to spend at least one year in the school of pharmacy before doing any store work at all, and that the school should accept as students only such individuals as can either pass an actual graded examination or bring proof in the way of diplomas or other certificates that they have attained a certain grade in some recognized institution of learning. Employers should select their apprentices from these classes, compelling the young men to take at least one year of practical work before returning to the school to complete the course offered

there.

The

I have never been able to determine how the fitness of an applicant can be estimated except by actually setting him to work. Every pharmacist has had a like experience in this matter. While one individual may be theoretically well prepared for the study of pharmacy, he may absolutely lack all those qualities which peculiarly fit a man for the successful pursuit of the profession and business of the retail pharmacist; while another, who may be lacking in the requisite amount of school practice, might be personally well qualified for the conduct of a practical business. For these reasons I have always found it very difficult to unqualifiedly indorse any of the various methods offered in times past. one thing of which I am certain is that many men are graduated each year who are entirely unfit by education, precept, and shrewdness, or any other term which might be used to qualify their fitness for business, to stand even in an ordinarily small store as a clerk. Imagine such a one, and there are many of them, opening up a store for himself. It is easy to guess the result. For this reason and for many others I wish to indorse the article in the November number, and to voice my belief that the journals could in a great measure force the colleges to adopt the necessary means to weed out much of the unfit material that presents itself every year, and finally carries off the diploma of the school. Philadelphia, November 8.

JAMES H. BEAL, Sc.D., Ph.G.,

Dean, Department of Pharmacy, Scio College. There is not a particle of doubt that a college of pharmacy should refuse its diploma to a student who is not possessed of the equivalent of, at the least, a good gram

mar-school education. I feel sure from a somewhat close observation during the past five or six years that the schools are coming more and more to the same conclusion, and that the standards both for admission and graduation have been materially improved within that time.

However, supposing the requirement of a grammarschool education to be generally enforced, this brings us to the question, What shall be done with the large number of drug clerks already in drug stores who lack this requirement? The majority of these will continue in pharmacy, and by hook or by crook will eventually become registered pharmacists. As a practical question then we ask, Shall they be debarred from the opportunity of improving their pharmaceutical knowledge by a course at a college of pharmacy? There is scarcely any doubt of the fact that, notwithstanding their lack of general education, they would be better druggists by attendance at a pharmacy college, and that the public would be greatly benefited by their increased competency.

Two possible answers to these questions suggest themselves:

First: Let us admit such applicants to the benefits of the college curriculum, and if they can, notwithstanding their inferior general education, make a satisfactory showing in all branches, grant them a certificate stating the fact, but withhold from them all recognized degrees and diplomas, unless they shall afterwards make up their other deficiencies. The reason for this last qualifying clause is that it has frequently occurred that students who have entered colleges of pharmacy, and there realized their general deficiencies, have afterwards entered upon and completed literary courses.

Second: Let some special degree be adopted which shall be generally understood as not requiring any other training than that which the college of pharmacy gives, and to admit all candidates not grossly ignorant to the course leading to this degree. While neither of the above alternatives is without objection, either, if adopted, would soon lead to a more satisfactory condition of affairs than exists to-day.

On the whole, I believe I am justified in saying that the failure to make greater advances in the requirements for preliminary education of pharmacy students has not been due to lack of zeal on the part of the colleges, but to circumstances beyond the control of faculties and boards of trustees. The teachers of pharmacy are a unit in desiring the better education of their students, while a not inconsiderable body of pharmacists are still opposed to any education whatever, except that which can be. gained from store experience, and the ability to "make change" correctly.

Fortunately, the general trend of opinion is in the right direction, and if the present rate of progress is kept

up, it cannot be many years until a more satisfactory standard of preliminary education will be supported by pharmacists and demanded by the colleges.

Scio, Ohio, November 8.

WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, Ph.G.,

Professor of Pharmacy, Brooklyn College of Pharmacy; President, National Association of Retail Druggists.

I have read with much interest your editorial, "This is the Least that the Colleges Owe to Pharmacy," and while I agree with you that the subject of higher education is one of the most important problems with which the pharmacists of to-day are confronted, and that closing the door against illiteracy and incompetency is essential to pharmaceutical progress, I must take exception to the inference that the college is responsible for existing evils, and that upon it rests the responsibility for relief.

If the only avenue through which a young man could enter the pharmaceutical world were the college, that institution could justly be held responsible for his pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as his ability to apply it. But under existing conditions the boards of pharmacy, alone, have the power to determine who shall constitute the pharmaceutical profession of this country. While I have the highest regard for the ability and integrity of the men who constitute our boards of pharmacy, and while I sympathize with them in the performance of their arduous duties, it cannot be denied that a very small percentage of those who apply for a license to practice pharmacy, regardless of their character, preliminary education, or business ability, fail to obtain the same. In some instances there may be one, two, or even a halfdozen unsuccessful attempts, but the determined one finally succeeds and is ushered into the profession with as much authority as the high-school graduate who has pursued a thorough course in a well regulated college, and given positive evidence of good character and at least four years' practical experience. To what extent these men will succeed in the business world depends greatly upon circumstances; but their relative value to the pharmaceutical profession leaves little room for comment.

The mind that has never been broadened and elevated by education will have a tendency to place the almighty dollar before everything else, for no matter how deficient in general knowledge one may be, the value of the dollar is always known; while the mind that has been developed and made to appreciate the great value of education is stimulated and reaches out for greater results and higher attainments.

The relative value, however, of a graduate or practical licentiate is a secondary consideration, when viewing the true issue of the day. This is a deplorable condition

brought about through the admission to the pharmaceutical profession of those whose lack of preliminary education renders them incompetent to cope with important duties and grave responsibilities. What just and logical means can be devised to overcome it? As indicated above, the boards of pharmacy are the channels through which objectionable men enter the profession. What restrictions then can we place upon these boards to restrict the license to those who are competent in every particular?

It has been suggested that such restriction can be secured through the colleges of pharmacy. With certain regulations that plan would insure satisfactory results and maintain the rights of all; a college diploma as a prerequisite for examination would appear to be a reasonable condition for licensure. The diploma thus elevated and made such an important feature in pharmaceutical progress, should be surrounded by safeguards that would maintain its honor and insure its perpetuation. The requirements to obtain it should be uniform: each college should be compelled to maintain a definite standard for entrance and final examinations, as well as college attendance and practical store service.

The contention that the college must first raise its standard and prove itself worthy of the proposed concession will not prove a serious obstacle; nor should the opinion of some that the prerequisite plan should first be put in operation, in order to stimulate the college to maintain a higher standard, retard consistent and satisfactory action; for while many will maintain that their way is the only way, the great mass of liberal, consistent pharmacists will recognize in both contentions faults and injustice, as well as advantages, and decide that all differences can be overcome by allowing the prerequisite plan and higher college requirements to go hand in hand, one depending upon the other, and both to go into effect at the same time.

While I believe every college in the country would willingly meet all requirements of the prerequisite plan without positive restrictions, I will admit the possibility of abuses and irregular practices, if absolute freedom of action is allowed. I am firmly convinced that to demand that the college of pharmacy shall raise its standard and place such restrictions around its require ments for admission as will exclude the bulk of its patronage, in order to prove its sincerity, without affording it such protection as will insure its stability, is as unreasonable as to expect a soldier to thrust his body upon the bayonet of an enemy, to prove his loyalty. In my opinion, "the least that the colleges owe to pharmacy" is to hold themselves in readiness to comply with all legitimate demands of their supporters, and to cooperate willingly with every consistent move for the elevation of the profession.

Brooklyn, N. Y., November 10.

WILLIS G. GREGORY, Ph.G., M.D., Member of the New York Board of Pharmacy; Dean, Buffalo College of Pharmacy.

An editorial in the November BULLETIN discusses one of the most interesting questions now being studied by progressive pharmacists. While the question is not definitely formulated in your article, it apparently runs something like this: What is the responsibility of colleges of pharmacy to the profession of pharmacy itself, concerning those who seek to enter its ranks? or, to put it in other words, How finely should colleges of pharmacy sift the material applying to them for instruction ?

The first thought that occurs to me is another query. Why under present conditions should colleges of pharmacy exercise, at all, any such function as that suggested by the two questions? The primary object of a college is to give instruction. It is not a licensing body, nor does its diploma in most instances confer the right to practice pharmacy. Most States have provided special boards to exercise the licensing power. Is it not illogical to expect or demand of one agent, created for a distinctly different purpose, the service for which another agent has been specially created? Why not raise and discuss the question, Are boards of pharmacy meeting the full measure of their responsibility toward the profession of pharmacy, which created them and pays their expenses?

My second thought is this: Should the colleges create an effective educational requirement they would debar many ambitious and deserving men from the privilege of an education; while the same men, by the use of quiz compends and possibly with the aid of private instruction, could succeed in passing the present board examinations and thus secure entrance into the field of pharmacy without the benefit of systematic training. In such cases the college is injured, the man is injured, pharmacy is injured, and nothing is gained. It is just as easy to ascertain a candidate's knowledge of arithmetic or grammar by a board examination as by a preliminary college examination.

Thirdly, the loss to colleges, in students, would be a serious matter to them; and while it may be claimed that the schools have no right to consider this fact, so long as it may be to the advantage of pharmacy itself, they certainly have as much right to consider it as pharmacists themselves have to select an uneducated boy for an apprentice, because he is cheaper than a grammarschool or high-school graduate. This suggests the thought, in the fourth place, that of those entering the ranks of pharmacy every year probably 75 per cent enter by some path other than that through a college of pharmacy. Where does the responsibility lie for the sifting of this 75 per cent? If it be with the pharmacist himself, surely he should be called upon to remedy the

situation three times as often, or three times as loudly, as the same demand is made upon the colleges; and if the responsibility is thus shared by two parties, or by three, if we include the examining boards, let them work together to remedy the evil.

There are other things to be said upon this subject from the view-point of the colleges, but out of respect for your space let me say briefly that New York State is making a vigorous effort to remedy the fault you have discussed. The remedy lies in three stages:

1. Apprenticeship: After January 1, 1901, no one can enter upon a practical experience in pharmacy which will be acceptable to the State board without a certificate from the board itself. To obtain this certificate, the candidate must present evidence of the proper age and such education as may be required.

2. Graduation: All candidates for examination, after 1905, must be graduates of a college of pharmacy. To matriculate in any college in this State an educational requirement will be demanded, supervised by the regents of the University of the State of New York.

3. Examination: Having complied with these requirements the candidate must still pass an examination before the State board of pharmacy, before which these requirements must be fully established.

The colleges of pharmacy in this State are in hearty accord with the State Pharmaceutical Association in securing these ample provisions for a suitable sifting of candidates for the profession of pharmacy.

In view of these facts, it would appear that your criticisms have no application to the colleges of pharmacy in New York State. It is hoped that the example of this State will be followed by others, so that the rapidity with which State examining boards were provided may be equaled in the adoption of entrance requirements to the practice of pharmacy.

Buffalo, N. Y., November 10.

R. G. ECCLES, M.D.,

Editor of Merck's Archives.

The editorial in your November issue upon "The Least that the Colleges Owe to Pharmacy" is timely and important. The sooner pharmacists awake to the danger that lurks in the present method of turning floor sweepers, porters, and graduate cleaners, picked up by "BOY WANTED" signs in the windows, into full-fledged druggists, the better it will be for pharmacy. Many pharmacists are already awake to the danger, but seem inclined to try to make a bad matter worse by seeking higher education through forcing boards of pharmacy to demand the exhibition of a diploma from a college of pharmacy before examining the candidate for a license. As well build a house on a foundation of rotten stone. The bigger the house the more woful the fall.

The only place where the evil is susceptible of cure is at the door of the college. It is folly to try to better the matter at any other point. Druggists are not to blame for hiring boys to clean out their stores. They are to blame if they recommend such boys as having been apprentices. That it is not necessary for them to do so for the boys to get into some colleges, the writer knows from experience. The college authorities take the boys' own word for evidence in this matter. Let pharmacists insist upon colleges taking in only such young men as are properly vouched for as real apprentices, and who have had at least a high-school education, and the situation will quickly improve. As long as there is a large proportion of uneducated pharmacists in control of certain colleges of pharmacy teachers cannot be blamed for the character of the students turned out. For a teacher in such an institution to try and improve its practice would be to lose his position. To even hint to an outsider the facts concerning the institution would be to damage his prospects.

Put colleges into the power of State regents, where such exist; have laws passed forbidding the matriculation of any person not possessed of a high-school education, and then improvement of the present painful condition of things can be hoped for. For a college to be under the control of uneducated men is bad enough, but for it to be under the control of the men who control the board of pharmacy, unless such men are superangelic, is far worse. When these men are not genuine angels, anything like an attempt at reform without first removing them from their positions can end in nothing better than a farce.

New York, November 10.

GEORGE B. KAUFFMAN, Ph.C.,

Dean, College of Pharmacy, Ohio State University. "All things come to him who waits" is an aphorism whose general truth we doubt. Nor do we believe in supinely waiting for a given something to happen; yet we think it likely to prove true in the case of the editor of the BULLETIN, who so earnestly pleads for a better basis of pharmaceutical education. Not that we would. accuse him of being among those who lazily wait, for his editorial proves him to be of those who lend their aid to bring about a desired result, and we hope he will continue to keep their plain duty before our teaching institutions. We just mean to assert that he will have his wish in time, and we do not believe his patience will be greatly taxed.

The writer began to teach pharmacy fourteen years ago. A comparison of the conditions then and now shows a change amounting to little short of complete revolution. The development of schools of pharmacy as departments of our great universities has been the