to follow. Special education is that which relates to some particular occupation or pursuit, the preparation for which is not covered by the general e ducation.

The extent to which a general education is essential, as distinct from simply desirable, is debatable, and is more or less a matter of opinion, but that there is a large amount that is essential will not be debated. All elementary education should be general. Usually, a large portion of the secondary-school course is general, a few electives being allowed which have a special bearing. Very often the college course is general. In many cases, however, part of the college course is general, part has relation to some special occupation, as engineering or law. The university and technical school are, in the very nature of things, special.

It is not so much the object of this paper to clearly outline the distinction between that which is general and that which is special thruout the curriculum, as to show the proper relations between the general and special in secondary and lower college courses. If, therefore, I cease to keep before my hearers the grade of the education, it is simply to avoid awkwardness and dwell upon the principle involved, rather than the strict details.

General education is composed of those branches, or parts of branches, of study, which are used by man in contact with his fellow-man in the social organization under which he lives, in correspondence, communication, in business, in short in everything which constitutes his life as man; such branches as reading, spelling, penmanship, drawing, arithmetic, geography, American history, English grammar and rhetoric, physiology and hygiene, elementary plant and animal life, the primary essentials of physics, chemistry, business and social forms.

These are the branches that may be described as the common expression of the activities of man. They are not adopted by him, they are his nature disciplined and developed.

In the selection of topics for schoolroom work under these respective branches, care should be taken to select those topics which will throw most light on usual experiences. To illustrate: The teacher of geography should not be content simply with teaching what the textbook suggests, or what he studied himself as a pupil. He should rather ask, what has common experience found to be the most useful knowledge in geography? He would find, in answer to this question, not the memoriter work of some years ago, which consisted in memorizing the names of all the different capes and bays, peninsulas, isthmuses, rivers, mountains, cities, towns, etc., a process the results of which were sure to fail him in his later experiences, but the learning rather of those essential features in geography which remain with him and make a part of his judgments in all his calculations, such as the shape of the earth, its motions, its climate, and the effects of its climate on its productions-that is to say, on its life conditions; drainage, atmosphere, field and laboratory work, interpretations of maps, etc.

In arithmetic, the question would not be, can I study elementary, advanced,

and high-school arithmetic, with all of the variety of problems, catch and otherwise, that might be imagined, but what knowledge of arithmetic will enable the boy to solve the problems that usually present themselves, such as the fundamental rules, common and decimal fractions, percentage, interest, etc.

In history, not the unrelated records of the deeds of the past, but an interpretation of the institutions under which we live in the light of the experience of the past as related to these institutions, as, for instance, municipal government, local and state and interstate relations, transportation, systems of exchange, social customs, etc.

The point that I should like especially to emphasize is that the selection of matter in this way in the departments of general education will suit best the commercial demand in all that is not strictly detailed and special.

As indicated above, the pursuit of the branches that are conceded to be general in this manner will consume most of the time of the ordinary secondaryschool course. Elections may be allowed in a few branches, such as the modern languages, bookkeeping, stenography, and commercial law, but when the elections are taken in bookkeeping and commercial law, these branches should be studied not with a view so much to keep books in a particular way and to know the commercial law of the land as to establish in the mind the systematic principle that is followed out in the keeping of books, and the natural essentials that enter into the formation of contracts for the transfer of property and for work. In so far as these branches are studied in this manner, they should be classified more as general than special subjects, and yet as a matter of fact, studying them in this way will furnish the necessary training for nearly all business houses. After a long period of observation, I have reached the conclusion that more depended on the thoroness in which the work that was done in these branches was accomplished than on the special or general nature of the school. The boy who does his work thoroly in the ordinary high-school bookkeeping is able to keep books in any institution of a common order, especially if allowed a little time to adjust himself.

My strongest point in favoring this kind of a course thru the high school is that the pupil is unable to anticipate his future employment. Of all of the boys I have known in the high schools with which I have been connected, it is safe to say that not 3 per cent. of them secured exactly the employment they anticipated. One expects to go into business. He thinks he would like to be a salesman in a wholesale drygoods house; he fails to get employment in such a house and takes it in an electric house; and so, in one way or another, practically everyone fails of being able to anticipate exactly what he will do. A few persons are actually employed in bookkeeping and stenography of a mechanical order for which, and for which only, they are prepared.

The place for special commercial courses seems to me to be in the higher institutions of learning. An examination of some of the courses in these institutions gives one the impression that there is not there a clear discrimination between that which is general and that which is commercial. For instance,

sociology, ancient and modern social ideals, projected types of an ideal society, American social problems, a study of the negro, Indian, Chinese, and other race problems, criminology, tariff history of the United States, government of the United States, a study of the theory and present practical operation of the federal constitution, citizenship, federal and state, a comparative study of civil government in Europe and the United States, a study of the executive power, its position of leadership in modern government, the present activities of political parties in the United States, international law, the police power, etc. Valuable and interesting as are these subjects, all of them quotations from business and commercial courses, I submit that they are too broad to apply to any particular occupation as distinct from another. Perhaps the men who would most need a knowledge of sociology would be statesmen and clergymen.

There can be no objection to any man in any institution studying any one or more of these subjects, provided he is interested in the subject and studies it in a manner that will bring to him valuable knowledge and disciplined habits of thought as a consequence. The only objection comes from a confused notion as to the specific relation of given subjects to given pursuits.

In closing, permit me to reassert that the education which is of greatest value and which is first in order is that education which will enable its possessor to meet the greatest number of problems and activities that are likely to present themselves.

The education that is strictly special should be taken only when the person is sure that he is to pursue a strictly definite occupation, and should then be taken in the broadest way possible consistent with that occupation.

The planning of our courses of study in this manner will tend to strengthen legitimate commercial courses as it will tend to free the public mind from delusive ideas, and to furnish that kind of knowledge which will be strictly reliable.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD STUDY

SECRETARY'S MINUTES

FIRST SESSION-TUESDAY MORNING, JULY 9, 1907

The department of Child Study met in the First Methodist Church of Los Angeles at 9:30 A. M.

In the absence of all of the officers of the department Mr. George L. Leslie, director of science department of the Los Angeles City Schools, was chosen acting president. Miss Laura B. Bennett, of the Los Angeles City Schools, was appointed secretary.

A paper was read by J. K. Stableton, superintendent of schools, Bloomington, Ill., on the subject, "The Delinquent and Dependent Child in Its Home Environments." A general discussion followed.

Henry Suzzallo, adjunct professor of elementary education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, gave an address upon "The Child's Emotional Life and Its Training." A discussion followed.

The department then adjourned.

SECOND SESSION-THURSDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 11

The department was called to order by Acting President Leslie.

Professor F. B. Dresslar, of the University of California, read a paper upon "The Contributions of Twenty-five Years of Organized Child Study in America to Educational Theory and Practice."

Acting President Leslie addressed the department upon "The Child Study Movement in Los Angeles."

The following were elected officers for the department for the ensuing year.

For President-William H. Burnham, professor of pedagogy, Clark University, Worcester, Mass.

For Vice-President-William L. Bryan, president of State University, Bloomington, Ind.

For Secretary-M. V. O'Shea, professor of Science and Art of Education, State University, Madison, Wis.

The department then adjourned.

LAURA B. BENNETT, Secretary.

THE TRAINING OF THE CHILD'S EMOTIONAL LIFE HENRY SUZZALLO, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK CITY [CONDENSED ED STENOGRAPHIC REPORT]

A half-century ago it was the belief of the leaders in American education and in American public life that knowledge was, in social affairs, power. It was a firm conviction that if the school gave intellectuality to the citizens of the nation that moral character, efficient in private and social affairs, would be the result. A present-day view of the situation shows less optimism with regard to the force of a merely intellectual education.

This lack of optimism is due to the fact that certain discrepancies have been noted between school education and social efficiency. There are college graduates who are criminals in spite of their intellectual training, and there