Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 79.djvu/395

Rh with dissociated from the sciences to which they pertain. So far as the two are related, the purposes of science can not be antagonistic to those of agriculture and it is better for the accomplishment of the reform toward vocational education to let the sciences bear their share of the burden of time and responsibility and have the same "charged to their account" while profiting as they will by the inclusion of the latter.

Should agricultural materials and principles be utilized for the purpose of teaching the sciences, and the student progressively pursue his science beyond the ability of agriculture to give any direct benefit, the operation of constantly rejecting the unessential and reconstructing with the (apparently) essential for the purpose of perfecting organization is a mental operation quite familiar to educators and is observed in daily practise by good teachers in all subjects. It is a characteristic merit of the "scientific method" and the "spiral plan," and is generally recognized as the natural order of mental growth. Thus most of the knowledge acquired in school is but transient in its value—a scaffolding for the erection of a more perfect structure. It is not the agricultural work considered as knowledge so much as the right kind of training in science which its inclusion alone insures that makes it the best means of preparation in science for any collegiate course or for any general educational purpose.

But the fundamental sciences can not be depended upon to give a complete treatment of the subject of agriculture as it should be treated in the high school. Where manual skills in technical processes are