Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 26.djvu/35

Rh not allow the heritage of the ancient humanistic culture to this inconsistent system. . . . Through many practical-schools—and this often less on account of the studies taught than of the superficially practical training of the teachers—there runs a certain strain of philosophical and ethical crudity. That many teachers possess only a scientific and partial culture is generally less their own fault than that of the irregularity which characterizes the examinations of these teachers by the authorities.

"It is a most ridiculous position which Latin occupies in the practical-school. It bears no relation to any of the other branches, and, since the pupils learn French quicker than Latin, it is senseless to say that they learn Latin in order to be able to learn the modern languages."

The author then sketches the course of study of the ideal secondary school, but fails to preserve the proper balance between the several studies, from having no adequate conception of an important one of them. He has something to say about natural science, but does not know why, how, or when it should be studied. Apparently no glimmer of psychology has ever entered his mind; at least, not a ray is reflected. Not sufficiently conscious of his defect to refrain from what he is incompetent to perform, he is yet so far aware of it as to make a confession in these words:

"Unfortunately we ourselves, thanks to our classical training, are too strange in this realm to be able to determine how far and in what way the sciences referred to are to be taught in school without either those parts of the natural sciences which constitute an element of general modern culture being omitted, or things being dragged in which would be better left for presentation by the university instructor. The answers to these questions must come from men who are familiar with the natural sciences without being prepossessed by them."

The advocates of a wider choice of studies in American education are of two classes: One class, admitting the claims of linguistic training to superiority, asks only the option of employing either ancient or modern languages, saving a little space, perhaps, for natural science. The other class holds, first of all, that the art of education must be based upon the science of psychology, and that the symmetrical development and highest efficiency of the mind can be secured only through a training which gives the due amount of exercise to each faculty. It has long been recognized as an absurdity to suppose that the muscular part of the human organism gets its best development from any one kind of hard work. The stone-cutter or machinist may have strong arms, with very defective legs. The coal-heaver will be strong in the back, but will have a stooping posture and a cramped chest; much rowing produces about the same development. Similarly with the brain. The most prolonged and severe exercise of the memory will not perceptibly improve the observing powers, and no amount of drill