theoretical geometry, book science, and a dry survey of English literature? We say these subjects are good for the mental discipline they give and we satisfy our consciences with such an answer; but we must remember that the whole doctrine of mental discipline is questioned by some of the greatest educational thinkers of the times. We cannot afford to base so important a thing as the education of the children on a theory that is not definitely established, or, at least, on one that is questioned by so many of our educational thinkers. It may be said that the doctrine of mental discipline has never been disproved. In reply to that it can be said that it has never been proved, and it is incumbent upon those who would base our educational system on such a theory to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. They should not ask us to believe a thing just because our fathers before us believed it and it is customary to do so. Then, even granting that there is such a thing as general discipline, none would assert that it could be brought about unless there is close application to the study at hand, which is seldom the case with the subjects referred to above.

When we investigate what the boys and girls in the high schools are studying, what do we find? From the report of the United States Commissioner of Education we find that 83 per cent of them are studying Latin, French, and German, when less than 5 per cent of those who are studying these languages will ever have occasion to use them. We find that 88 per cent of them are studying algebra and theoretical geometry for the mental discipline they give, when no one knows whether there is such a thing or not. We find that less than 5 per cent of them are studying agriculture, a study of vital importance to our national well-being; and that less than 4 per cent are studying home economics, a subject upon

which the strength and hardihood and, in a very large measure, the happiness of our race depend. It seems that our schools are organized and conducted so that the boys and girls will think more of the ornamental studies and choose them in preference to those that are more essential to their well-being. They are thinking more of "dressing their minds in the prevailing fashion" than they are of satisfying their physical, mental, moral, and industrial needs.

Let it be understood that we are not making war on a classical education. It is doubtless a good thing for those who can take it; but any sane man can see clearly that it is not the thing for all the children and that it is not the thing for most of the children. However good a classical education may be in itself, experience has proved to us that the children are not going to take it. It is the grossest stupidity on our part to go on year after year spending our money to give the children that which they will not and cannot take. The book-minded child may profit by such an education; but the motorminded child will receive no benefit from it, even though his parents and teachers succeed in cramming it down him.

NO PROVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

The classical course is not a bad thing in itself; but it is not broad enough for a foundation for public education. It makes no provision for individual differences. The educational philosophy of the eighteenth century said that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," one of which is to get a classical education, and it made no provision for inequalities. However, in spite of such a philosophy and with all respect to Thomas Jefferson and his fellow philosophers, it does not take a very wise man

to see that all men are not created equal in this respect. One is created with a capacity for figures; another lacks such capacity. One is good in language; another cannot with the greatest effort master the subject. There are people who are geniuses along certain lines and imbeciles along others. We have all known of bright pupils in school who could not learn the multiplication tables. We have known of others who could not learn to spell, or to write, others who could not remember dates, or memorize. We have known a number of pupils who could not with the utmost endeavor learn Latin. We have known others who could not learn the simplest truths about mathematics. It is said that Charles Sumner, who was one of the greatest men America ever produced, could not learn mathematics. The great Agassiz was also a blockhead when it came to figures. Grant was a simpleton when it came to financial matters, and many others could be named. We must not think that just because a man is great, he is great along all lines. He may be extremely weak along certain lines, and in the case of the great majority of men this is true. We know their strong points, but never hear of their weak points, and to a large extent a man's success or failure depends upon whether his weak or strong points get before the public. Grant was regarded by all his neighbors as a very ordinary fellow until he found his life opportunity in the management of armies. Patrick Henry was regarded as a worthless dreamer until he was called upon to make a speech. Blind Tom, James Sidis, even Webster, and many other geniuses we know or have read about were geniuses on just one side; on the other they were very ordinary creatures. When we consider the people we meet every day, we find the same differences. Some have strong points along certain lines; others have their strong points along other lines. As the Scriptures

say, "There are diversities of gifts." "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" The answer is, Most surely they do not; but each has his gift according to the talents with which heaven has endowed him.

Every teacher knows that some of her pupils are good in drawing, others in arithmetic, others in language, and others in geography. It is the exceptional pupil who is good in all his studies, and we should not expect a pupil to be good in all. However, as a matter of fact, our college-entrance conception of education leads us to endeavor to make them all advance alike. We tie them together in the first grade and we endeavor to make them walk in lock step until they graduate. They must all study the same subjects, make the same grades, and do their work as nearly alike as possible. We want to educate them symmetrically and make them all-around beings. Oh, the sins that have been committed in the name of this word symmetry! We have been afraid that we shall produce one-sided creatures, and we have sought to make each child good in every subject taught in the schools. When a pupil is weak along a certain line, we tell him to let his strong points alone for a while and devote his attention to his weak points. The girl tells us that she cannot learn algebra, and we tell her that is all the better reason for her studying it. She must strengthen her weak points and be a symmetrical character!

Somewhere we heard a story of a man who thought that he could improve upon animal kind by developing in them gifts which they did not possess. As the story goes, he called the animals around him, and said to the lion that he must cease roaring and learn to moo like

the cow, and to the cow that she must cease mooing and learn to roar like the lion. The cat must learn to bark like the dog and the dog must learn to mew like the cat. The snake was good enough at crawling and must learn to fly like the bird, and the bird was good enough at flying and must learn to crawl like the snake. The rooster must learn to cackle and the hen must learn to crow; the duck must learn to gobble and the turkey must learn to quack. Each one was to neglect the things he could do well and the gifts that heaven had endowed him with, and endearvo to learn those other things that were foreign to his nature.

We can see the absurdity of this story, but we are blind to the equal absurdity of endeavoring to do with children what this man was trying to do with these animals. How many times have we told our pupils that their not being good in a subject is all the better reason for their devoting more time to that subject? Here is a boy who has no talent for language and cannot learn the subject; but he is good in physics. Do we let him devote his time to that subject in which it will count most, or do we tell him to devote most of his time to that subject in which he is weakest? We hold him fast to our formal course of study. If he fails in grammar, he is retained in the grade until he passes the subject or passes out of school, and experience has proved that most frequently he passes out of school. We are more willing that a hundred such little ones should perish than that one jot or tittle of our requirements should not be met. It is true that we are beginning to differentiate our course of study for the high school to some degree at least, and the pupil may, in a measure, adapt the work to his aptitudes and needs; but the wall that separates the high school from the grades is so high and the watchmen are so diligent that few there be that go over it. We allow