206 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF EDUCATION. 
“btained evidence that boys who enter the institute with a good knowledge of Latin are 
very much better prepared for the work than those who have none or very little knowl- 
:dge of Latin. The study of Latin must continue to be an important factor for the 
preparation of any school above the secondary school. 
It seems to me we have got to change our reasoning in regard to this whole matter, 
and come back to the principle which I first laid down ; that is, that we must determine 
sarly in life what the child shall do, as far as we can. And I think we are committing 
another mistake in the present day in not insisting that the children shall do some work 
that they do not exactly like. That when we start them in a course of study we are not 
to judge at once that they may not make good scholars or do good work because they do 
not happen to like this study or that. I think one of the best things I ever heard is. 
“« Why, if you don’t like that study, that is the very reason why you should take it 
and pursueit.” I don’t mean that that should be carried to the extreme; but this pres- 
ant idea that we have, that every child shall only do the work for which he has an 
aptitude and liking, is a mistake in our system of education. I firmly believe that 
‘or the first sixteen or seventeen years in the life of the child, the study of the child, 
he instruction of the child, should be very disciplinary. I don’t think we can possiby 
confine the work in secondary schools simply to preparing for college. That idea 
makes the question very much broader, and I will: not go into that, because it would 
take too long to indicate the distinetion between these schools 
Mg. Bortwoob, of Evanston, I11.: I have yet to know of a high-school that was not 
ylways thrusting its lack of scholarship on’ the grammar school. And I have yet to 
now of a college that did not excuse its work because of the manner in which the pre- 
paratory or secondary school did its work. It means this: We are impatient for certain 
results. We want to turn out good average scholarships for work. We want, as has 
peen said, to work on the lines ot the least resistance. and the teachers are just as lazy 
1s the pupils. 
Why give Latin and Greek so great a prominence in the educational course ? Partly 
rom their value—and I would not underrate their value—and partly because with these 
‘he teacher feels his foot is on a rock, away ahead of the pupil. And there is an- 
other reason. The apparatus of instruction is so simple. All it costs is to put into the 
nands of a child a grammar and a reader costing two dollars and twenty-five cents. It 
they are going to teach physics, they will need to have a good laboratory. Now, do you 
now, there is very little outcome from the study of physics and the sciences, largely for 
he want of time. We don’t carry it far enough to produce educational value. When 
we take up sciences, we give physics one year, and we give Latin four years. And when 
the pupils pass into the colleges they are compared in the same way; that is, one year 
{or physics, with Latin four years. Tn other words, we are not working to an end. 
The elective system has come into our colleges to stay. The question as to the time 
when the student shall elect is a very important one. Our friend from Boston says they 
might begin at nine or ten years. A great part of our primary education in the pre- 
paratory school is necessary that the teacher may find out what the child is fit for. I 
believe that pupils should take languages that they don’t Like. When the election is 
made at the end of the second year, 1 believe they make mistakes. In other words, 
there must be in all our preparatory work a certain foundation of general culture. 
Now, in the preparatory school, suppose you take Latin four years, and take Greek 
two or three years; it leaves two years for mathematics. That must be, of course, some- 
what elective. 1 think it would be better to carry one longer. I notice in the German 
schools they very frequently carry a subject for six years, with only two recitations 
3 week. For example, French is carried five ycars. That same subject is taken up 
vith two subjects a week and carried six years. As it is in some of our schools the sub- 
ject is taken up early in the course, then dropped out entirely and forgotten when the 
pupil enters college. 
We talk a great deal about what pupils can do. I believe that requiring a pupil to 
sarry three studies, and three only, is a mistake. I believe the average pupil can carry 
four, if they are judiciously taught. Our pupils are not overworked. ~The trouble 
is that there are so many outside influences which cat into the time, that the mind is 
ot on the work as it ought to be. I notice in most schools whose courses I have exam- 
‘ned, that three studies are considered proper. in my own 1 have three and a half. I 
have a good deal of alternate work with drawing and Enghsh, so that the pupils carry 
{our daily exercises. 
Now take physics. Except early manipulation. which is like manual training, the 
maturity of the mind required to do much in physics is not to be found. I have been 
sompelled to put physics later in the course in the second year. I found the pupils, 
early . 
I have 
I be 
isto b 
positiv 
sity, 
expect 
sime € 
instea: 
requir 
In 
many 
attend 
in ma 
The 
ago. 
school 
colleg 
don’t 
think 
tribut 
om th 
Ta 
paper 
2xper: 
requi 
Philli 
ting 1 
and 
It is 
SO Pre 
perso: 
teach 
work 
put u 
feel t 
Dr. 
with 
study 
every 
busin 
shut 
of wl 
WW: 
years 
We 
apon 
shred 
21001 
2, gre 
pass 
frst 
to. 
were 
colle 
quire 
{erm 
part 
vehi 
anjo 
N. 
nave 
nn f