Consequent change of plan in appointments and promotions ·scholarly world, we shall welcome the prospect of a lightened burden for ourselves. The need of students, especially of freshmen, for advis ers is widely recognized. They come into a new freedom exercised in a new environment. This makes for bewilderment that involves loss of precious time and opportunities, and presents perils which involve possible injuries to many and certain injuries to some. Efforts, many and various, to constitute a body of advisers chosen from among faculty members have met with but little success. With few exceptions the task is not congenial to those who now man our faculties, and for that and other reasons they are ill fitted for it. But a greater measure of success has been attained, even under present conditions, when the coöperation of volunteers from among seniors and graduate students has been had. This suggests that the problem might come nearer solution when some dependence came to be placed upon the services of apprentices. Such service would be a part of their regular work having a bearing on their future career, and would therefore be supervised and rest on sustained interest and the consciousness that it was counting. Finally, young student teachers would, under proper encouragement and arrangement, help materially to bridge the gulf, that is broader than is wholesome, between a faculty of mature men and young students. The mixing of these different generations, so far as possible, is much to be desired, difficult as it is to accomplish. This is not the place to discuss the details of appointment and promotion plans, interesting and important as they are. But it is evident that the scheme of training outlined, if adopted, would call for changes in present practices. The appointing authorities of colleges looking for young teachers could ascertain their strong and weak points as they developed during their apprenticeship in classrooms and in other educational activities, as well as the quality and trend of their scholarship. They would not rest satisfied with ascertaining the minute corner of the field of philosophy, history, or physics in which a man recommended had done research. Records could be kept throwing much-needed light on the teaching ability, scholarship, and personality of candidates for appointment. In selecting college teachers, appointing authorities would value this evidence and would come to prefer teaching power to investigating ability. Moreover, the record keeping, and, no doubt, some of the supervision begun during the apprentice years would continue during the early instructorial years. This would render it possible to evaluate and to value effectiveness in teaching in making promotions. Ambitious teachers would no longer be practically forced, as their only resort, to neglect their students and give their best energies to publication in order to make a name and get a call, in the interest of promotion. The expert teacher would have a chance and a dignity equal to that of the skilled investigator. The individual could follow, and not be penalized for so doing, his own bent and the line of his highest capacity. of investi The training now given in graduate schools here and Training elsewhere for the doctorate in philosophy will, of course, gators continue, and increase rather than diminish. Investigators will be preferred in research, in universities, and in some colleges and college departments. They will be increasingly prized in the government service and in important branches of industry. The recent terrible experiences burn into our minds the imperative need strong nations have of exact knowledge and of skill that has a scientific edge. And the specific training for these great tasks will be stronger when it is based on a college course in which highly effective and whole-hearted teaching is valued and rewarded. College of the City of New York SIDNEY E. MEZES BIBLIOGRAPHY ANONYMOUS. Confessions of One Behind the Times. Atlantic, Vol. 3, pages 353-356, March, 1913. CANBY, H. S. The Professor. Harpers, April, 1913. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bulletin No. 2, May, 1908, pages 55-57. FLEXNER, ABRAHAM. Adjusting the College to American Life. Science, Vol. 29, pages 361-372. HANDSCHIN, C. H. Inbreeding in the Instructional Corps of American Colleges and Universities. Science, Vol. 32, pages 707-709. November, 1910. HOLLIDAY, CARL. Our "Doctored" Colleges. School and Society, Vol. 2, pages 782-784. November 27, 1915. HORNE, HERMAN H. The Study of Education by Prospective College Instructors. School Review, Vol. 16, March, 1908, pages 162170. PITKIN, W. B. Training College Teachers. Popular Science, Vol. 74, pages 588-595. June, 1909. Report of the Committee on Standards of American Universities. Science, Vol. 29, page 172. November 17, 1908. ROBINSON, MABEL L. Need of Supervision in College Teaching. School and Society, Vol. 2, pages 514-519, October 9, 1915. SANDERSON, E. D. Definiteness of Appointment and Tenure. Science, Vol. 39, pages 890-896, June, 1914. STEWART, CHARLES A. Appointment and Promotion of College Instructors. Educational Review, Vol. 44, 1912, pages 249–256. WILCZYNSKI, E. J. Appointments in College and Universities. Science, February 28, 1909; Vol. 29, pages 336ff. WOLFE, A. B. The Graduate School, Faculty Responsibility, and the Training of University Teachers. School and Society, September 16, 1916. III GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF COLLEGE TEACHING HE investigator of educational practices and methods Status of teaching in Tof teaching is impressed with an unmistakable educa- the colleges tional anti-climax, for the conviction grows on him that elementary school teaching is on a relatively high plane, that secondary school teaching is not as effective, and that collegiate teaching, with rare exceptions, is ineffective and in urgent need of reform. A superficial survey of educational literature of the last ten years shows that while the problem of the high school is now receiving earnest attention, elementary education continues to absorb the earnest efforts of an army of vitally interested investigators. The field of college pedagogics is still virgin soil, and no significant or extensive program for improved methods of teaching has yet been advanced. Three earnest and intelligent students representing three colleges of undisputed standing were asked informally about their instructors for the current semester. Nothing was said to make these students aware that their judgment would hold any significance beyond the friendly conversation. The summary of opinions is offered, not because the investigation is complete and affords a basis for scientific conclusion, but because it reflects typical college teaching in three recognized institutions of more than average standing. STUDENT No. I Teacher A: A popular and interesting teacher, talks enthusiastically but talks all the time. Lessons assigned are not heard. Students seldom recite. Written quizzes on themes of assigned reading are rated by an assistant. The work comes back with an A, a C, or a D, but we do STUDENT No. II Teacher A: A good teacher of mathematics. He assigns a new lesson for home study. The next day he asks questions on this lesson. The answers are written out on the blackboards. After fifteen minutes all students take their seats and the work on the blackboard is taken up for expla STUDENT No. III Teacher A: A very sur how Teacher B: Rather an interesting teacher; assigns lessons from a book. At the beginning of the hour he asks questions on the text but is soon carried away and rambles along for the period, touching on every subject. We never complete a chapter or topic. The succeeding hour we take the next chapter, which meets the fate. same Written tests determine the students' rank. The grade for the written test is announced, but the papers are not returned and one never knows why the papers were rated C or D. Teacher C: A conscientious teacher in physics. He assigns a definite lesson for each recitation of the term. STUDENT No. III much more the text meant than after our own reading. In the last session we went to our book on literature and tried to justify the characterization which the author of gives Chaucer. The class agreed with all in the book except in one characterization. In the composition work we took up the structure of short narratives. The assignment was to find narratives in current periodicals, in the writings of standard authors, in newspapers, and then attempt to find whether the structure we studied was followed. In each case we had to justify any departure from the standard. There was little time for the footnotes in Chaucer. I hope we are not asked for these on the final examination. Teacher B: A very conscientious teacher of chemistry. He gives us a ten-minute written quiz each hour on the work in the book or on the matter discussed in the last lecture. The rest of the hour is spent in explanation of difficult points and in the application of what we learned, to industry and physiology. It is see the surprising to interest the class shows in the chemical explanations of things never noticed before. we Teacher C: A scholarly instructor in history. He assigns thirty to forty pages in English history, and |