REQUIREMENTS FOR DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PEDAGOGY. 439 
al 
oe 
on 
od 
t, 
re 
1N- 
its 
2h 
1T- 
ed 
id 
or 
we 
ty 
Sf 
Ke 
Ys 
214} 
le 
ar 
le 
~~ 
1) 
e 
The work of developing a scientific pedagogue is quite different from that of special- 
ization in other lines. First of all he must be broadly educated ; then let him become a 
careful, thoughtful erdtic of the long process of training through which he has passed ; 
let him examine the history and development of school studies in his own and other 
lands ; let him critically survey the vast body of knowledge of which the school studies 
are, at the best, meager epitomes ; let him inquire what there is in literature, in science, 
in history, in art, and in home surroundings, most conducive to the best growth of a 
ooy and girl ; let him learn to deal with children sympathetically and thoughtfully— 
-hen he will begin to realize how profound and many-sided is the work of education. 
The doctor of pedagogy should have a critical knowledge of knowledges, an appreci- 
ative insight into child psychology and growth. The person who believes that pedagog- 
ical doctors who master all these matters can be turned out easily, must be more than 
sanguine in his beliefs, 
In the second place, the study of psychology is a sheet anchor for the pedagogue. But 
we are opening our eyes to the fact that psychology for the educator means something 
quite different from what has long prevailed in the schools. The psychology which is 
purely introspective and contemplative has had its day. But what we want now is 
careful and sympathetic observers of children. We need now a sympathetic children’s 
psychology all along the line from the kindergarten through the public school, and in 
connection with this a practical study of the physical wants and growth of children. 
The kistory of educational tendencies and movements, especially since the Reformation, 
and the revival of learning, is extremely helpful in giving an educator a relief map of 
she educational world of our own time. It will save him from many a one-sided opinion 
and exploded notion. It will give him a true practical view of the slow growth of 
educational ideas. Many ideas that are heralded to-day as recent discoveries in educa- 
ion will be found to have been the common property of educational thinkers from 
she time of Comenius. The biographies of distinguished teachers like Comenius, 
Franke, Luther, Arnold, Wolff, and Horace Mann, will give every receptive teacher a 
consciousness of the true spirit needed in his work. 
If there is to be such a person as a doctor of pedagogy, he should be first put through 
the severest of tests—the teaching of children in a practice school. There is nothing 
like a real school to show the distinction between theory and practice. It will tear 
away disguises, false theories, and reveal weakness and incapacity. There is only qne 
good antidote to a broad study of theories and systems of education—i.e., actual teaching. 
In view of the immature status of pedagogical science, and of the extremely difficult 
and comprehensive problems that confront specialists in education, we feel a certain 
reluctance in admitting the right of any one to be called a doctor of pedagogy. Much 
as we believe that there is a body of educational doctrine which, if not strictly scientific, 
is still of great practical utility, and extremely helpful to teachers, we are still slow to 
recognize a course of instruction adequate to the training of doctors of pedagogy. Per- 
naps it is well to jump bravely in and swim toward the goal with one’s best strength. 
Our universities are feeling their way cautiously into this largely unexplored field. 
No one with clear eyes and strong sympathies can fail to see that there is pressing 
need of pedagogical training for the many teachers who go out from our colleges and 
aniversities. Many of them need it all the more from the fact that they are not con- 
scious of their need. But university teachers and students are no longer so indifferent 
to the value of pedagogical science as they were a few years ago. The more exclusively 
absorbed teachers and students were in university pursuits, the less need they felt for 
sedagogical science. But now that the wnify and mutual dependence of all parts of 
school education are keenly felt, the universities see the necessity of turning out well- 
quipped teachers and leaders of pedagogical thought. 
There is still another convincing proof that strong thinkers are needed in the peda-