but there are special reasons for its insistence in science. Few teachers in chemistry and physics have had instruction at all comparable with the special, extensive training possessed by the teachers of languages and mathematics. Until recently this deficiency was not entirely the fault of the teachers, for colleges have been notoriously weak in those courses needed by the prospective teacher of science. At the present time several colleges offer science courses designed for those who intend to teach, and a few institutions have excellent courses in their summer schools, Harvard, Columbia, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology being in the latter class.

It is true that this enlargement of the curriculum is recent, but teachers can no longer truthfully say that there is no opportunity to prepare themselves for actual teaching. It is the duty of science teachers to secure, in some way, adequate preparation. Teachers of Latin, modern languages, and mathematics, as a rule, have a broad knowledge of their subjects resulting from many years of study, but it must be frankly admitted that many who are teaching physics and chemistry to-day had no such intention in college and made no special preparation for such work. Hence they lack that confident grasp of science so essential in teaching beginners. The lack of a pedagogical perspective compels too many teachers to force their college courses upon suffering and helpless beginners, or, what is worse, prevents them from selecting the proper material for secondary schools. Clearly, then, one way to make science more profitable is for teachers to strengthen the foundations, adapt courses to beginners, cultivate the acquaintance of

other teachers, become familiar with new apparatus and recent books, aiming always to acquire the methods which shall be effective with pupils as well as comfortable for teachers.

Physics and chemistry will continue to be unprofitable until the instruction is given with a more uniform aim. There is an appalling diversity of purpose on the part of science teachers. With some laboratory work is the sole end, with others it is exact measurement, even though the student learns to hate science; with others it is theory, despite the towering mass of interesting facts akin to human experience; with others it is lecture experiments, which have no beginning and no end as far as training goes, with a few it is common things-soap, matches, the gas meter, the automobile, etc.-all good in themselves, but still insignificant parts of a more important whole. Contrast these incongruous aims with those of teachers in other subjects. The Latin teacher knows that his business is to instruct his pupils in the syntax of the Latin language and the beauties of its literature. He knows furthermore that he has no right to omit fundamental rules or parts of texts or well established essentials, simply because he dislikes them. The teacher of English does not swing entirely clear of the college requirements, because he wants to satisfy a whim. He may not approve the scope of the requirements, but the good of his classes is regarded as superior to his personal comfort or ambition. I do not hesitate to claim that much of the waste in science teaching will continue as long as the teacher is a law unto himself. Not that rigid stereotyped courses are recommended, but it is evident to all candid teachers that uniformity

in aim is not only desirable, but will also still leave ample room for the adaptation of courses to personal tastes and local conditions.

The matter of supplies is vitally connected with economy in science teaching. In a recent questionnaire one query was, "What is the value of your scientific apparatus?" One teacher replied, "Total value $10,000, but much of it is obsolete." This commentary is sad, but typical. It is an unpalatable fact that money for supplies is foolishly spent. Equip slowly should be the watchword of the science teacher. Judicious purchases can be made by studying apparatus catalogues, conferring personally with dealers, visiting laboratories, and exchanging views with teachers doing the same grade of laboratory work. To these requisites must be added the old-fashioned proverb, "Spend another's money more carefully than your own." On the other hand teachers are often compelled to order supplies in a most unbusinesslike manner. No housekeeper ever orders at one time all the food to be consumed in a year nor the exact amount needed to meet uncertain demands. Yet in many schools the science teacher is required to order in May or June sufficient material for a year. It is impossible to predict the amounts needed, especially when the elective system yields classes of varying and uncertain size. Moreover, accidents, unavoidable losses, and unforeseen demands lead to unexpected consumption of supplies. If it is necessary to order most of the supplies at one time, then the science teacher should have access to a small emergency fund to use without restrictions, except of course, rendering an itemized receipt.

Physics and chemistry will continue to be unprofitable until their time content is more judiciously adjusted. It is a mistake to assume that laboratory work can be profitably performed any time during the day, and it is a deplorable mistake to assume that the science teacher can teach effectively every period in the day. Time enough should be given to the individual. sciences to secure fundamental results. If the time is insufficient, then the class will be in the plight of the man who just misses the train. Recent statistics show that the better high schools devote at least five hours a week to physics and to chemistry during a school year. This time is adequate, provided it is placed at the sole disposal of the teacher of each science. He should be allowed to use this time as the psychological conditions of his classes demand. His programme should be flexible as far as the utilization of each period is concerned. That is to say, he should not be required to have a lecture, recitation, or a laboratory period at a fixed hour. The programme can be adjusted to meet this condition, since the point involved is location of classes, not the time. Programmes are doubtless prepared with less labor when the conditions are rigid, and other teachers may crave the use of a science lecture room for unexpected work. But it should not be overlooked that it is unprofitable-to state it mildly-for science classes to recite when they should be performing experiments or to do "the next experiment" when the preceding ones are not understood. It is not claimed that the science teacher should have the first choice of time. The point is that physical science like any other subject will be unprofitable if the work is not conducted under conditions

favorable for its assimilation and retention. The science teacher ought also to have at least one double laboratory period a week. This provision permits consecutive mental work, avoids troublesome interruptions, and allows time for consultation between teacher and pupil. One distinct advantage of the double period is often overlooked. Many experiments consume about forty minutes, and it sometimes happens that the dismissal bell rings as the experiment is approaching completion, and although a few more minutes would suffice for the experiment, the work must be left in such a chaotic condition that the labor of the whole period is worthless.

In my opinion the inability or unwillingness to apply certain psychological and ethical principles accounts for most of the profitless work.

First, laboratory work is concrete labor. Now concrete labor is difficult to shirk. In studying history, geometry, or language the mind may easily wander, but when the mind is following an experiment in the laboratory it does not readily ramble. Something is constantly happening to attract attention, and the mind passing quickly from concrete to concrete has little or no inclination to roam. Apparatus must be arranged, chemicals collected, and experiments started, watched, controlled, or stopped. But if the programme restricts the time for laboratory work or if the teacher persists in explaining in the classroom what the pupil can think out unaided in the laboratory from his own data, then it is folly to expect the laboratory work to yield good results. There must be enough carefully arranged and judiciously supervised laboratory work to prevent the normal tendency to