ments incident to securing office, but the student in search of historic truth is impressed with the fact that largeness of life and high altruistic motive, rather than greed for gain or office, are the factors that have inscribed names on the roll of fame. A man successful in any profession is apt to have all interests increasingly centering in a selfish life, but the student's mental and moral horizon continually enlarges as he learns that the good and great of all ages have devoted their energy to the service of others. It is true, as we should expect, that students as a rule have a high sense of honor; their ethical life usually conforms to the highest criteria; there are reasons for believing that many of the evils in university circles are, at the outset, less a matter of ethical dictate than of prevailing custom and sentiment.

"Let one college community establish an annual 'shirt-tail parade,' or a similar diversion, and others will soon adopt the weird ceremony, without even weighing the consequences on their scholastic life; let one team win the day in the athletic field by a new species of stratagem, whether honorable or dishonorable, the new tactics are likely to be incorporated in the manœuvres of other teams. Equally dishonorable are many of the customs in the classroom where cribbing and other forms of deception go on under the eye of the school authorities.

"The need of a quickening of the conscience of student bodies, of a crusade against these low standards of conduct. is everywhere felt, proof of which is evinced in the recent establishment of an International Committee on Moral Training. The Commission has already collected data, throwing much light upon the causes of lax moral conditions; it finds, in general, that too little attention has been given by faculties and school authorities to the subject of ethical standards; that in our higher institutions of learning, in particular, there has been a gradual lessening of the grip on the deportment of the student body, that faculties have too often been content to give students undue freedom in fraternities, in other organizations, and on the ath

letic field; that out of this freedom evil customs have grown that are now so firmly intrenched that they are hard to control.

"American colleges demand-first, a tightening of their grip in the matter of general control. In their earlier history, our schools adopted the old English system by which they exercise a firm grasp upon the student body. This system became so burdened with petty restrictions that it grew more and more objectionable to the governed until it has been practically abandoned with no substitute; as a result, we are in many cases without any clearly defined method of procedure. The union of faculty with representatives of the student body is giving desirable results in Southern institutions and in many of the North. Most of the leaders among our students are mature men and women who are not only students but responsible citizens, worthy of confidence and ready to respond to appeals to manliness and the sense of honor. Such have probably a stronger influence over many of their companions than does the faculty itself. It is for the few thoughtless and more impulsive that disciplinary measures are created. The student leaders are usually closely associated with this disorderly minority whom they may easily check. The author's experience of ten years as dean of one of our Western colleges has led him to believe that fraternal organizations may be valuable agencies in matters of discipline, as they can exercise a wholesome influence over, at least, their own members; doubtless every college officer has seen the wisdom of utilizing these organized forces. Through this co-operation with the students much may be done toward the establishment of a more wholesome set of regulations for conduct on the athletic field, and in the matter of elevating the standard of authorship of papers in the classroom.

"The writer is convinced that indolence and general dissipation of mental power are responsible for many of the evils above mentioned. Laziness weakens one morally as well as mentally; a loafer is incapable of ethical growth because his

mental fibre is too dormant to assimilate moral nourishment; vigorous, persistent work of any sort begets concentration, self-reliance, and tenacity of purpose, all of which have a moral import. The principal value of athletics lies in the fact that nothing but the student's best efforts have a reflex psychic influence of incalculable worth. A considerable per cent of our students do not go to college but are sent; they struggle into the institution with no serious intentions of work; as a rule they come from opulent homes, dress attractively, and flit about as society leaders. Their example is deleterious to students of laudable intentions who are often thwarted from their course by these so-called society leaders. A large body of the students yield to the dissipations of loafing and of social life, neglect their studies, and then come up for examination unprepared where the temptation for deception is strong. Threefourths of the cheating in the classroom is doubtless created by a lack of preparation to meet assigned tasks.

"Finally, let me say, that the ultimate solution of this problem lies with the faculty itself, for just as the foundation of the house asserts itself all the way from cellar to garret, so does the character of the faculty limit and determine the atmosphere in which the student lives. 'As is the teacher so is the school,' is an old proverb from whose truth we can not escape.

"Many of our instructors not only lend nothing to the uplift of the moral atmosphere of the institutions served, but rather detract from it. There is scarcely a college where there are not petty factions in which jealousy, selfishness, and unlawful ambition lead them into measures to satisfy personal ends. The student body soon learns of these disgraceful conditions and are, many of them, drawn into the unholy clique to lend their aid to the contention; an atmosphere of general dissension is soon created, and students following the example of faculty acquire the habit of gratifying unlawful ambition at any cost. A teacher's power is infinitely more in what he is than in what he teaches.

"It is this contact of student life with that of the faculty that counts for more than all else in the morals of our institutions. Really the strongest lessons that we teach are the lessons we do not teach, but those that emanate from our personality. It is this subtle influence of heart upon heart, and soul upon soul, that counts for ethics in the college hall, without which all formal instruction is worthless."

Clark University set aside two weeks in September for a celebration of the twentieth anniversary of Clark University its founding. The celeHolds Unique Celebration bration was not of the ordinary kind, and so attracted educators, government officials and men and women interested in the higher development of humanity and the world's institutions. They came from all parts of America as well as from abroad, and the exercises included a series of lectures and discussions in each of the departments of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, pedagogy and history. There were also several academic and social sessions.

Clark is slightly different from other American universities. Set apart for distinctively advanced work, and refusing to cater to any of the social features of American academic life, this school has gone on its way, under the presidency of Dr. G. Stanley Hall, contributing quietly but effectively to research work and training specialists.

A long list of world-famed educators gave lectures or took part in the daily discussions. Among these were five former members of the Clark faculty, Professors Michelson, Bolza and Whitman, now of the University of Chicago; Professor Franz Boas of Columbia, and Professor Henry S. White of Vassar. Others were Dr. H. S. Jennings of Johns Hopkins, Dr. L. William Stern of the University of Breslau, Dr. Henry H. Goddard of the Vineland Training School, Professor F. B. Dressler of the University of Alabama, Professor Hodge of Clark, Dr. Willard S. Small of the Eastern High School at Washington, Dr.

Helen S. Putnam of Providence, Dr. Leo Burgerstein of Vienna, Dr. Ed. Sigmund Freud of Vienna, Professor Guy Montrose Whipple of Cornell, Dr. Edwin A. Kirkpatrick of the Fitchburg Normal, Professor Colin A. Scott of the Boston Normal, Dr. J. Carleton Bell of the Brooklyn Training School for Teachers, Professor James Pierpont of Yale, Professor Vito Volterra of the University of Rome, Professor Percival Lowell of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor A. D. Mead of Brown, Dr. C. G. Jung of the University of Zurich, Professor E. B. Titchener of Cornell, Professor E. H. Moe of the University of Chicago, Dr. Adolph Meyer of Johns Hopkins, Dr. Elmer Ellsworth Brown, Professor Paul H. Hanus of Harvard, Professor Paul Munro of Columbia, Professor Seashore of the University of Iowa, President Nichols of Dartmouth, Professor J. W. A. Young of the University of Chicago, Professor Edward Franklin Buchner of Johns Hopkins, Emma Goldman, Professor Anna J. McKeag of Wellesley, Dean Thomas M. Balliet of the University of New York, Professor Baldwin of Swarthmore, Dr. John P. Jones of India, Professor A. L. P. Dennis of Wisconsin, Professor W. F. Chamberlain of Rutgers, Congressman Charles G. Washburn, Dr. J. D. Burks of the Bureau of Municipal Research, and a number of other men and women of promience, including practically the entire facculty of Clark University.

All in all the celebration brought together one of the most notable gatherings of educators ever assembled in the United States.

Pedagogy was one of the important subjects at the Clark exercises a subEducation as a College Subject

ject which holds a position of importance at all educational gatherings. Some very eminent educators consider pedagogy a waste of time, whilst others equally eminent consider the subject one of great importance. These two viewpoints have been held for a number of years, and unity

of opinion is not yet. The Clark discussion brought out some new facts and opinions, ably presented by leaders in the profession of teaching.

Professor Buchner opened the subject by pointing out that the first normal school was founded in 1839 in Massachusetts, that the first chair of education was established forty years later at the University of Michigan, and that the first college department of education, the Teachers' College of Columbia University, was founded twenty years after that, drawing the hopeful lesson that, as these gains have been progressive, so has each been made in less time than the one that preceded. The success of education as a college subject depends, Dr. Buchner thought, on the interest the college takes in its students and on the man who puts it into the college.

It

"The Place of Pedagogy in Colleges for Women" was presented by Professor Anna J. McKeag of Wellesley. From one-half to one-third of the graduates of women's colleges enter upon wageearning occupations. For this reason, Professor McKeag thought it injudicious to attempt to differentiate between vocational and non-vocational courses. was expedient to catch in the net as many as possible of the women who did not expect to become teachers; for of such shall be our future school committees. "We are only beginning to develop our technique," the speaker admitted, but she outlined a course in secondary education which might be profitably given to graduate students, and summarized briefly, as follows, the policy she thought desirable, at least for the present, in colleges for women:

1. The undergraduate introductory courses should be given to professional and non-professional students in the same classes. 2. Work in observation of children and schools should form a part of such courses. 3. Informational, cultural and inspirational aims should not be neglected. 4. More narrowly technical courses are best given to graduate students. 5. Our departments should include a sufficiently large teaching staff to make possible to instructors

Dr. Thomas M. Balliet, dean of the University of New York, suggested that, since colleges prepare for professional schools of law, medicine and theology, they might as properly train for schools of education. He would make a distinction between undergraduate and graduate work experienced teachers to take graduate work, the undergraduate to be given that which will most help him in the schoolroom.

Discussion was then in order, and President Hall of Clark, speaking on invitation, developed the thought of advance which other speakers had touched upon, and recalled an interesting episode. As a young professor at Harvard, some twenty-five years ago, President Eliot unexpectedly notified him to be ready on the following Saturday to begin a course of lectures on pedagogy for Boston teachers. Opening that course, a few days later, Dr. Eliot said in substance, "Ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe in pedagogy. I never have. Here is a young man who has come from a place (Germany) where they make such things. You are going to listen to him for twelve consecutive Saturdays. the end of that time you will know whether there is anything in his subject, as some people believe, or nothing in it, as I believe."

At

This passage in President Hall's brief address was capped, a little later, by Professor Norton, in terms that tactfully brought out the change of sentiment amongst distinguished educators. "When, some years ago," said Professor Norton, "I went to President Eliot to ask his advice about taking up instruction in pedagogy, he said, 'You know you are undertaking work much despised by academic persons?' 'Do you believe in this work and in its value?' I asked, and he answered, 'I do.''

There was a pause. The chairman had a few minutes to spare and he asked again for volunteers. It was the psychical moment, and Emma Goldman, who was present, and who had been wanting to speak, came forward. She was brave,

"Is not pedagoguery today filling the mind of the child with predigested food, instead of aiming to bring out his individuality?" Miss Goldman demanded. "Is it not most important that he should learn his own ability and be equipped to understand his relation to the world about him? Do not women's colleges neglect to take up the most important subject, that of sex psychology, and so unfit their graduates, who become teachers, to get in touch with pupils? Does not successful teaching depend on individuality rather than method?"

There were more questions, many more. One brave man undertook to deal with the assortment tagged to his address. "No-yes-yes-no," he said. The chairman ended the episode to general satisfaction. "I suspect," he said, "that our friend has moved to please herself and divert us by asking the safe questions that answer themselves."

Dr. Leo Burgerstein, who came from Vienna to attend the celebration at Clark University, delivered a Co-Education lecture on "Co-Educa

and

Hygiene tion and Hygiene," with special reference to European experience and views. Dr. Burgerstein is one of Europe's foremost authorities on hygiene, and his words were listened to with much interest. After stating that he was mainly interested in the hygienic aspect of the question, and its practical consequences for schools, he said he thought it would be admitted that female nature is not artificially inoculated by education, the development of the faculty of speech, for instance, being quicker in female than in male children, and the selection of games is another, yet it was true that far too little work has been done in the matter of exact university investigation. The results would be far more trustworthy where the girls and the boys have been developed under analogous psychical conditions. It is co-education

schools themselves that would be our greatest help.

"Experience shows that the differences in the fitness of the female scholarship are not so great as in the male. There have existed a number of male youthful prodigies in mathematics or musical composition, and a further proof of the greater variability of male children is that the unfavorable abnormalities are also more frequent with the male than with the female. Warner has made an investigation on 50,000 children, nearly the same number of each sex, and found that, in round numbers, 21 per cent of the boys but only 16 per cent of the girls are in any way defective. The classical country regarding co-education in high schools in Europe is the grandduchy of Finland in Russia, a country of very great culture, in which co-education has existed since 1885. An experienced female teacher in one of the oldest schools there says quite openly that boys show more aptitude and inclination for one special subject or another, whilst girls generally try to study all subjects in an equally careful and diligent way. Girls are more easily influenced by suggestion than boys; and it may be a consequence of the greater suggestibility that the power of application for work comes. more easily to girls than to boys. Walking through the corridors of the Vienna University one may get from the number of lady students that one sees there the impression that there must be a high percentage of female students, but statistics show that there are only five and one-half per cent. The fact is that ladies are more regular in coming to the lectures.

"As to work done in single subjects of instruction in high school course, we know almost nothing definite. Regarding the total result of school work, I know of no positive information except that coming from the co-educational high schools of Finland. It shows always the better results with girls. When we look at that, there is no reason to be adduced against co-education in high schools; the only question is the difference in the ability of the two sexes at

the same age. The completion of growth in boys requires a longer time than in girls, and the difference between the physical condition of boys and girls shows itself very distinctly in their ailments, probably also in their mortality. As to the latter, I know only the statement of Hartwell of Boston that, whilst the latent mortality among boys is during the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth years, among the girls it is in the twelfth and thirteenth years. In every year, using illustrations from Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the percentage of sickly girls is much higher than that of boys; and a critical study of statistics based on physical aspects shows unfavorable conditions for the girls, with regard to the power of resistance against noxious influences. In the school régime, therefore, the observance of the rules of school hygiene for girls should play an important part. There are hardly any serious reasons forthcoming against co-education in high schools, but the physical state of development velopment of girls speaks decidedly against burdening them with such a burden as the boys have to bear now in our European high schools.

"Another question as to co-education is the morality question. In Northern Europe nothing objectionable or improper has been noticed. Some other possible psychical influence, which has to do with special secondary sexual characteristics, may be expected to work favorably in its effects with co-education. The girls may learn from boys to criticise their subjects of study and become influenced by the specialistic tendencies of the boys; they may learn to be more independent, and capable of deciding for themselves, and get rid of superfluous shyness. On the other hand, the greater refinement of the girls may have a propitious influence on the boys, in causing them to cultivate more moderation and gentleness. It may be that co-education will also have a good influence on the views of parents. Up till now girls have not been given enough freedom of mind and body in Europe. "In every case, we must always come