their useful character in preparation for citizenship. But for four centuries American and European history have been closely connected. The foundations of American institutions and history being in Europe, a study of mediaeval and modern Europe is essential to an understanding of our history, i. e., to a preparation for good citizenship.

In a country where the population is made up of so many elements, where so many modern nationalities and national characteristics are represented, as in America, some study of those nationalities and their characteristics must be made. How else can an understanding of our own institutions and ideas be reached save thru a study of the types from which they come, the conditions that have brought about changes, the forms of these changes, and the difference between these institutions in America and in the country of their origin? We must study modern European history in order to get the information necessary to an understanding of our own history. Modern history does, then, furnish information of a practical kind.

Again, modern history gives the information most likely to furnish a sound basis for reasoning on important world movements. In the future, as a most active world-power,

a power which, whether we wish it or no, must take part in the great world-movements, America must be wisely guided. In a government such as ours, where public opinion is so powerful, the greater the intelligence on questions relating to history and government, the greater the chance for intelligent direction and guidance. History will not make all people wise, but constant dealing with historical and governmental facts and notions, and practice in reasoning upon such things, will make the future citizen who is to influence public opinion, more capable of forming sound judgment. Now, if the United States is to have a larger and larger part in world affairs, is it not of greater import than ever before that Americans understand more of the history, institutions, and ideals of other countries? Some schools give a course in English history and that is very valuable for the purposes just mentioned; but that is not enough; for other countries besides England are also concerned, and it is modern history that gives the desired information relating to those countries.

It may be said that too few attend school as far as thru the second year of the high school where modern history is taught, to make the question of intelligent citizenship important. It must be admitted that only a small percentage of the citizens of the United States have now actually as much education as is represented by two years of high school, but the time is at hand when that percentage will rapidly increase. Even if it should not, it is wisdom to do all that can be done for those who do take the work, however few.

Modern history, then, should have an important place in the high-school curriculum, because it gives information of a practical sort, information that will make clear our American history, that will make better judgments on American questions possible, information that will make for general intelligence and better citizenship.

Second, does modern history, as history in general, afford abundant opportunity of setting high types of character and high ideals before the students? The names Pitt, Gladstone, Cavour, Stein, suggest some of the higher types of character; the struggle for the elevation of the middle and lower classes to a higher plane industrially, politically, socially, the struggles for the overthrow of special privilege, the growth of general education; the struggle for humanitarian advancement, etc., suggest some of the high ideals. But why illustrate further? Anyone familiar with the modern history of Europe will find no lack of material for this purpose.

Third, is modern history a culture subject? Tho ancient history is in some respects superior for this purpose, yet much of the best civilization produced in art, in music, in literature, in government, in humanitarian institutions, in ideals of all kinds, is abundantly represented in modern history. Where is a better opportunity to give some of the elements of this culture than by teaching of these things and how they have been attained? Modern history dealing with the struggles of men to reach the higher things of life, will broaden the sympathies and refine the feelings.

Fourth, does modern history help to teach the American boy or girl to be patriotic ?

American institutions and American law are based upon certain ideas of broad human sympathy, such as the equality of men; that men have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; that when a government becomes oppressive the people have a right to change or abolish it; that there shall be freedom of worship and of speech, etc. These are the principles that are held dear by the patriotic American. They constitute in large part the basis of his patriotism. But how and why were these ideas adopted and established? This question can be answered by modern European history, and in part by that only. The struggle of the people of Europe for religious toleration, for political freedom, for economic and industrial justice is one long commentary on the underlying principles of our own system. Will not a study of such things help toward the true appreciation of what we were given by the sacrifices of our fathers? Surely we can more fully understand and appreciate our own institutions if we read of the struggles of the Third Estate in the French Revolution, or of the efforts to secure freedom of speech in the English parliament, or of the development of English political and religious liberty, or of the many struggles for representative institutions in the various countries, or for the realization of nationality in Germany and Italy, etc. But why multiply examples? It must be clear to everyone that modern hisory, may be made to teach patriotism to the American high-school student.

Fifth, as a moral teacher modern European history has no superior. Nowhere else are there more and better examples of the moral advance of the race and of the individuals of the race than in modern Europe. The rapid advance in civilization in modern times is due in large part to a moral advance in ideals. But there is not time to illustrate further. Sixth, as a subject of interest to a large number of American people, a people composed of elements from all races and nationalities of Europe, modern European history is superior to any other, unless it be American history. It therefore can fairly claim a place in the curriculum on that ground.

The next important question is, what shall be the subject-matter of this modern history that it may be made to secure the results here claimed for it. At present no more can be said than that the material must be selected from the points of view indicated in the preceding pages. Further discussion of this question is not possible in the time limit, nor indeed is it within the scope of the subject of this paper.

Now, to sum up; because modern history gives information of a practical sort that will explain our own American history, that will make possible better judgments on questions of actual life, that will make for better citizenship; because it furnishes to the students examples of high types of character and high ideals; because it is a culture subject; because it helps teach the American boy and girl real patriotism; because it is a good moral teacher; and because it has great interest for many persons, it makes strong claim to a prominent place in the high-school curriculum. But since the reasons just stated are the chief reasons for history in the high school at all, it follows that modern history is entitled to an important place in the history course. Because it is essential to an understanding of American history, and because it is more directly connected with our own civilization than is ancient history, it ought to be given more prominence than any other history save our own English-American history. And because it trains for general intelligence, culture, good citizenship, and practical life, generally, it makes a claim to being one of the most important subjects in the whole high-school course.

DISCUSSION

R. H. HUNT, principal of high school, San José, Cal.—I find it very easy and delightfully simple to express my appreciation of the well-prepared and thoughtful paper just presented. It is a pleasure, moreover, to concur in Mr. Miller's main theses and thoroly orthodox conclusions.

All that remains for me to do, therefore, would seem to be to add some weight of emphasis to a few of the propositions made, to recognize the difficulties of matter and method in securing the desired results, and to suggest a synthetic view-point as the best key with which to open the doors of the great treasure-house of our past.

I would particularly emphasize the identity of the history of Europe with American history. We have become accustomed to this concept of identity as applied to England and the United States; why not advance a step farther across the British Channel, if you please, and understand that American colonial history can be rightly understood only when interpreted in terms of the history-politics and religion-of Spain, of France, of Holland, in fact of western Europe? If the history of Virginia cannot be studied apart from the asserted rights and prerogatives of the Stuart kings, neither can the occupation of California be understood without the colonial policy of Spain and the missionary zeal of the Roman Church, nor the vicissitudes of Canada and parts of the South be comprehended without the pathetic but significant story of the Huguenots and the early portents of revolution in France.

Next I would add a word of emphasis to the thought that some European history should be taught in the grammar school. No better time can be found than the sixth grade for the creation of preliminary—yet not inaccurate—impressions of those great institutions like monasticism and feudalism, and those powerful movements like the Crusades and the Renaissance, and especially of commanding personalities like Charlemagne, Alfred, Luther, and a score of others, all of which had such profound influence in shaping the current of universal history. Such instruction will admirably serve the double purpose of furnishing an important foundation for the systematic study of American history and of making possible the more intensive as well as more comprehensive study of European history in the high school. In this connection it is gratifying to mark the prominence given to western Europe in the "Provisional Report on a Course of Study in History" by the Committee of Eight from the American Historical Association.

I must before closing at least make mention of two points that might well have been discussed at greater length in a consideration of our topic. The first is the practical difficulty of teaching so intricate and complex a subject as modern European history. This of necessity involves the most judicious selection and rejection of material in so vast a field. For the purpose of this discussion I would date modern history at least back to Charlemagne and have it cover in general the field of the second-year history course as undertaken in most of our high schools. The difficulties of the subject when considered in the light of its importance demand the best-prepared and most skilful instructors as well as the most advanced classroom and library helps. Our teachers in San José have found the Heath History Syllabus well adapted to this work provided the library is furnished with an abundance of suitable reference books; and for the next year we have decided to allow an option of three leading textbooks instead of requiring all pupils to buy the

same.

The last point I shall make is foreshadowed by a clause I have just used about selecting and rejecting material. What should be the subject-matter of this course in history that is making such claims? I have time to answer only categorically. It must not be chiefly military, nor must the merely political everywhere dominate. It must be partly biographical, it must include much of the institutional, the industrial must be interwoven with the political, the literary and the political must be studied in the light of the religious. In a word, since history is the truthful record of developing humanity, having to do with the whole of man's life and interests, the aim of instruction must ever be a social aim, and the pupil must thus be led to that fundamental truth that history is a single, on-flowing current of human activity. Nowhere can the noble concept of the unity of history be more effectively taught, nowhere can the spirit of history be more advantageously inculcated than in the course of modern European history under the guidance of an instructor who is at once sympathetic, judicious, and scholarly.

D. SCIENCE ROUND TABLE

THE VALUE AND LIMITATIONS OF QUANTITATIVE WORK IN PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY

GEORGE C. BUSH, SUPERVISING PRINCIPAL, SOUTH PASADENA, CAL.

Much has been said and written of late concerning the value and limitations of quantitative work in physics and chemistry. One has only to flip over the pages of such school magazines as School Science to see that this kind of work has been the cause of much thought and discussion. Before entering into a consideration of this subject I wish to make a few statements concerning the presence of physics and chemistry in the curricula of high schools. First, they have long ago established their claims as instruments of education. Second, while unusually rich in opportunities for arousing interest and developing power, they should not be expected to yield strange and marvelous results. They should be judged just like every other subject in the course. Physics and chemistry cannot be given with a guarantee to make a student out of a failure in other subjects because of interesting apparatus and amusing phenomena. They sometimes do this thing and perhaps a little oftener than textbook subjects-this on account of the laboratory method which enables the teacher to diagnose and prescribe for the individual rather than the class. Third, the aim of physics and chemistry is to sharpen the observation, teach accuracy, develop reasoning, bring the pupil face to face with the unity and harmony of nature, give useful information with which these subjects are teeming-above all to develop power.

The charge has frequently been made, and by persons high in the educational world, that these subjects are not as attractive to pupils as they used to be, especially physics. Dr. G. Stanley Hall shares this view. They may not be as attractive, but we certainly believe that as they are now taught they are more powerful as instruments of education. I recall my own extreme enthusiasm in physics as a student in the high school fifteen years ago, where nothing bordering on quantitative work was attempted, where we simply reveled in the recitation of the wonders of the science, and where on examination I worked a problem in mɔmentum by multiplying the mass in pounds by the velocity in feet per minute and received a perfect mark, while the superintendent's son, who had a key, solved it by multiplying the mass by the velocity in feet per second and was marked wrong. We were fascinated by the subject except for the mathematics, loaded with erroneous ideas, made imaginative to a degree, deluded into thinking we knew a great deal about physics and anxious to learn more, but, after all, left to learn at some future time the real science and to profit by its course of reasoning. I recall my struggle with my first year's work in university physics. Quantitative work may not give entertainment of the "oh my" type in which the science is lost in the confusion of mind likely to accompany the experiment. Quantitative work well done will, however, give that inward joy, the feeling of power, the pleasure of the philosopher that prompts the student to further and greater activity. This is a thing that counts strongly in education. I do not mean to say that quantitative work has the advantage over qualitative in prompting additional efforts. The reverse is true, ordinarily, but quantitative work in doing this does infinitely more for the student in developing his powers. For purpose of entertainment, for arousing that wild enthusiasm which we hear teachers once were wont to impart to pupils, we will concede that quantitative work has its limitations. More is demanded of us, however, than the creation of a desire to do some real work-in the subject somewhere, some day.

The term quantitative work, it seems to me, has taken on an exaggerated meaning, made to embrace work bordering onto research, giving the notion that it is very technical and very difficult, and thereby bringing itself into disfavor as high-school work. Quantitative work does not need to be difficult-in fact it should be made as easy as possible and yet accomplish the purpose. In point of difficulty, intricacy and expense of apparatus, and in time consumed there should be no great difference between qualitative and quantita

tive experiments. There is likely to be a difference in difficulty on account of the teacher's inability to make the pupil get out of the qualitative experiment all that should be gotten. The mathematical nature of quantitative experiments necessitates finer work and the pupil is not slow to recognize this. It is surprising to see how much pleasure is manifested by pupils in being able to test the accuracy of their work. They soon come to prefer this kind of laboratory experiment. They say they know when they have finished. We all like definiteness in a task.

The chief limitations of quantitative work result I think from the selection of experiments and the presentation by the teacher. The teacher is then, after all, if empowered to select the experiments, the cause of the limitations. I have no patience with the set of arid, parched, and lifeless experiments which start out with work with the sliding scale, vernier and micrometer calipers, spherometers, chemical balances, etc.; not that these things are not of value, but that the proper time to study them is when they are called into use for a definite purpose. The vernier and micrometer calipers are not interesting to the average boy or girl and excite curiosity and respect only when the need is seen of exact measurements, which time may be late in the course, perhaps when the barometer is used and when the laws of strings and the resistance of wires are studied. The question of quantitative work is hopeful if the pupil can be led to the point where he wants to know and wants to do in order to find out more. He should then be given the opportunity to do. James says that it is not in the moment of their forming but in the moment of their producing motor effects that resolves and aspirations communicate a set to the brain.

The quantitative experiments should be selected not for their disciplinary value but for their use in elucidating and verifying the work of the classroom for which purpose they are indispensible. Suppose, for example, we are beginning on a course in chemistry. Oxygen and hydrogen have been studied. The law of definite proportions is then presented. What possible reason can there be for asking the pupil to accept this on faith. Why not let him convince himself of its truth by a few simple quantitative experiments like burning a known amount of magnesium and weighing the product, and decomposing a known amount of potassium chlorate and getting the products? Where is the difficulty in these experiments that should bar them from the course? Why should a pupil be asked to accept the statement that one-fifth the air is oxygen when by means of a bottle, a graduate, and some pyrogallic acid he can soon demonstrate it? With what joy he reports a result which approaches the accepted amount and with what positiveness he states it when later asked to give the composition of air. Is this not worth while? A simple experiment like this, however, requires the closest supervision of the teacher, without which any quantitative experiment is likely to fail. Guidance at every step is imperative.

What would be thought of a course in chemistry that omitted a discussion of the combining weights of the elements and of the atomic theory. Why not introduce the pupil to such a theory by a series of experiments in hydrogen equivalence? They have a right to ask why when these laws and theories are presented to them. There can be no objection in point of time spent, difficulty, or expense, in finding the hydrogen equivalent of zinc, magnesium, and aluminium that is commensurate with the great value of such experiments. And so on thru the entire course. Thru experiments of this kind one gets a realizing sense of the laws of nature by coming into direct contact with them. Confidence in nature is established.

In physics how can the exactness of an exact science be impressed unless quantitative relations be demonstrated? It seems to me that it would be like throwing away ammunition for a teacher to fail to make use of the many quantitative experiments possible in this subject. They above all others, in addition to the light they shed upon the subject, afford · to the pupil the means of developing observation, reasoning, and imagination. The personal equation which enters so largely into every quantitative experiment adds attraction to it if reasonably accurate results are within the limits of possibility of the apparatus. In no other way can accurate notions of the various physical units be impressed. A