subsidies a building craze was nurtured that gave Rome a title to the praises so lavishly bestowed. For great conflagrations there is a cause and a condition: the drought and high winds of 1871 would not have turned the burning of a shack into the great Chicago fire, had not Chicago had so many wood buildings, wood side-walks and even wood-paved streets. Just as the emperors could say they found Rome a city of brick and wood and left it a city of marble, so the Chicagoans could boast that the fire found Chicago a city of wood and left it one of stone. In Russia wood is the chief structural material. Now the initial cost of wood buildings is lower than more lasting ones; but when one considers the fact that Russian and Siberian towns in consequence of decay and fire are rebuilt every 20 or 30 years, it seems very doubtful that wood is cheapest in the long run. In 1812, the great fire of Moscow, started by patriotic Russians to compel Napoleon to retire, would not have consumed four-fifths of the city, had not the houses with but few exceptions been built of wood. In both America and Australia the tendency of pioneer days to use wood still exists in spite of the greatly increased price. Wood is so convenient; all parts of a house may be prepared and numbered at the mill; a mere beginner can put up a frame house. In 1849 when adventurers from all lands flocked to the California gold fields, San Francisco quickly grew to be a city composed of factory-made frame houses; and as a result, in 1850, it was wiped out by fire three times in quick succession. Were it not for the danger from fire, much might be said in favor of wood construction. Contrast the home-like appearance of a wood-built town, with the dreary aspect, the stifling monotony of mining towns built of corrugated sheet iron, such as are found in various parts of the United States and South Africa. It has been the fashion in our country to build at resorts monster hotels, all of wood, and very pretentious in appearance. Such a hotel was the "Inside Inn" an enormous wood structure erected on the World's Fair Grounds at St. Louis at the time of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition. It was conveniently and practically built; there were 4,000 rooms, 6,000 beds and plenty of fire-escapes; all passed off well, yet what terrible chances the thousands of guests took, that came and went each day. Prevention is better than cure. It has been calculated that the first cost of a fire-proof building is about 15 per cent higher than that of the dangerous kind, and that the durability and the reduction in repair and in insurance premiums,— if such should be deemed necessary,-would wipe out this difference in a few years. Incombustible material is, however, not necessarily safe. Of course stone will not burn; but the various forms of calcium carbonate, such as limestone, travertine, marble, etc., are decomposed when strongly heated, are turned into lime, and crumble. Ordinary mortar, too, is, after exposure composed in part of calcium carbonate; hence the danger of collapse of brick walls during or after a fire. More resistant stone, such as granite and sandstone, when strongly heated in a conflagration and then struck by water will. crack; this in fact, was the method of getting through stubborn rock masses in the days before blasting agents were employed. Steel is a very modern building material; we see such framework of tall structures in our large cities, standing out like metal skeletons against the sky. Now while steel or iron will not burn in air nor be easily melted, such buildings cannot be pronounced safe unless the surroundings are; strong heat will cause expansion and pushing out, still stronger heat will weaken the carrying power of the girders and cause bending and with its enormous load a structure cannot stand the strain. It is evident that our safety depends on the safety of our neighbors. It has been suggested that buildings be labelled safe or dangerous and that the latter be taxed more heavily; this, it is claimed, would not be unjust in view of the fact that, as a public danger, such structures add greatly to the city's expenditure. If all buildings were safe there would be no chance for conflagrations. The term "safe" and "fire-proof" are not synonymous; the first may be relative. Material to be fire-proof must not only be incombustible but must remain practically unchanged by fire. One good effect of the rise in price of wood is that it is increasingly turning attention to Portland cement construction. Portland cement is made by grinding and mixing and heating the materials (which are essentially limestone and clay or marl) and then powdering the resulting mass. The resulting yellowish green powder, when moistened, hardens in air or under water without change of volume, and becomes stone-like. It is not usually applied by itself, but in erecting buildings of what is commonly called ferro-concrete. You see board columns with twisted steel rods in the midst. Into these boxes and around the rods is filled the concrete, made by mixing and moistening crushed rock or pebbles and cement. On Sunday morning, Feb. 7, 1904, fire broke out in Baltimore which raged for thirty hours and was stopped in consequence of a fortunate shifting of the wind. Just after Apr. 18, 1906 the whole country was shocked by the news that San Francisco was ruined by an earthquake and that the ruins were in flames. A valuable lesson was drawn from these terrible disasters; experts examined the affected districts in both cities, and their conclusion was that the concrete structures were not only most fire-proof but also most resistant to earthquake shocks. BUILDING MATERIAL IN THE UNITED STATES Between 1890 and 1912 the amount of Portland cement produced in the United States increased from 350,000 to 83,350,000 barrels. In 1909 wood was used in only 27.5 per cent of building materials in 128 of our leading cities. Brick buildings made up 61.49 per cent of the total construction by cost. Wood is still much used in small town and country construction. [From Salisbury, Barrows, and Tower's Elements of Geography.]. IN THE PURPOSES OF GEOGRAPHY TEACHING By Richard Elwood Dodge Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City N these days when it is becoming increasingly possible, by simple tests, to measure progress in teaching, the question naturally arises as to the ways in which progress can be measured in such a time-honored subject as geography. This is a pertinent and a perplexing subject,—pertinent because efficiency should be a test applied to all school subjects, and perplexing because geography, from its nature, does not permit the application of efficiency tests as readily as subjects like arithmetic, spelling, drawing, etc., that can be readily divided into a number of sub-units in each of which certain definite standards can be set. We cannot measure progress unless we know where we are going-the goal which we must reach in the end. There is no general agreement as yet as to the objects of school geography study, either from the standpoint of knowledge, or the ability of the learners to use their knowledge in the seeking of more knowledge, or in the interpretation of every day affairs. The first stage, therefore, in any serious effort to measure geography work in schools is to agree on certain general standards as to the aim of the work. Then we can shape our course toward the goal in order that our progress each year or day may be measured in the proper perspective of the problem as a whole. When we can divide our course, not into certain years of work, but into certain definite steps, each of which ought to develop certain abilities and powers, then we can apply tests that will measure progress in each sub-unit. A teacher knowing the ends of her work and the powers her pupils should display at the beginning and the end of the year, can really do something, and not be merely helping turn the endless treadmill of daily monotony, which has characterized school geography so much in the past. The first step, therefore, is to agree on certain desirable ends to be attained, and then to question oneself as to how much each year's work is contributing toward the attainment of those ends. The methods employed must of course be reviewed in any such seeking after ideals. The too common practices of question and answer, of memory work and recitation, reveal themselves at once as incomplete methods of work. Training in how to study and use geography is more vital than a knowledge of the facts of geography. Is it worth while to memorize the capes and peninsulas, to drill on the location of mountains and inconsequential rivers, or is it more worth while to teach the significance of these features in the human life of a locality, and to permit the location knowledge to come out chiefly through this larger study? Is it worth while to hear recitations from a closed text book, or is it more worth while to have the maps and text before the pupils and to show them how to get the permanent things out of their study? Is it worth while to illustrate the common features of the earth from some distant land, or is it more worth while to make the home locally significant as a geographic area that is replete with geographic relationship? Is it worth while to make pupils think that geography is a perfect subject and the text book the last word on the subject, or is it more worth while to show them that geography is a vital, growing subject and that its problems will be of significance all their lives? Is it worth while to require every pupil to repeat a certain phraseology, sentence by sentence, or is it more worth while to have him tell a story and illustrate it by his own most natural means of expression? Is it worth while to test pupils' knowledge of fact by making them draw a map from memory, thereby impressing upon their minds error, or is it more worth while to give them a good base map and ask them to express their knowledge on that? These are only a few of the problems that geography teaching brings up; some of them dealing with methods of daily practice, others, and the more fundamental, involving a consideration of the whole problem of geography teaching. Until we can agree on the ends most worth while, and the best means of reaching those ends, it is unfair to measure a teacher's or pupil's progress by personal standards or ideals. A superintendent or critic who takes a teacher to task for not pronouncing Missouri or Himalaya according to his personal and often inaccurate standards, and yet who will praise a clock work recitation, with questions and answers ticked off in perfect time, has much yet. to learn as to the real end and purpose of geography teaching, and is not using the correct tests. We all desire improvement in geography teaching; we have vague images of ideals which we would like to reach. Can we not agree on these desirable ideals, and then work on the means that should be employed to reach these ends, with the least waste of energy? Then we will be in a position to test by proper standards our work of the day and year. At present the tests we apply have no standard values. They fluctuate with the occasion much as does the value of a Mexican dollar in the banks of the world. GEOGRAPHY IN NORMAL AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS The Teachers College Record of Columbia University has recently published the following papers, the first four by Richard Elwood Dodge and the last by Clara Barbara Kirchway (Vol. XV, No. 2, March, 1914, 68 pages). The Study of Geography in Normal Schools. Tendencies in Secondary School Geography. A Half Year Course in the Elements of Physical Geography and Its Applications. Regional Geography in Secondary Schools. Economic Geography of the United States. A PICTURE STUDY IN GEOGRAPHY By Lucy M. Gardner LL teachers know the value of picture study in language but many do not realize to what extent pictures can be used in geography. By picture study in geography I do not mean the passing around or holding up of pictures in class or the putting them up on the wall for inspection. I mean thorough and thoughtful study which will not only stimulate interest in geography but arouse it in history and all branches of art, thus laying a foundation for a broader appreciation of these subjects in later years. This work can be made just as effective in the upper as in the lower grades. Teachers of physical geography know that so far as possible every phase of it should be studied first hand. But there are many features that no one locality will illustrate and some, such as glaciers and volcanoes, that can seldom be studied by means of class field trips. The teachers, therefore, must use pictures extensively or many phases of the subject will be dry and meaningless. As long as pictures are going to supplant first hand study they should be given careful consideration by each member of the class. There are many means for securing this. In case a class has been working for a time on rivers, when the subject has been completed, the teacher may cover a screen with numbered pictures representing such subjects as flood plains, falls, rapids, cascades, water gaps, streams littered with boulders, chasms, meandering streams, deltas and so forth. Then the class may be given a set of questions after the following manner: What name is given to a stream like the one shown in 57? What picture shows a young valley? What picture shows a cut off? Under what circumstances might the boulders shown in 28 be moved? Which one illustrates cascades? Which one shows a braided stream? The class may be given a few days for preparing the answers and then a class period may be taken for discussing them. If a pupil gives an incorrect. answer, the teacher should hand him the picture and question him until he corrects his error. In order that the pictures may be handled quickly they should be piled on the desk according to a given order, number one being on top. Class tests by means of post cards may be given. In this exercise members of the class are given post cards showing various physical features and having on their front questions concerning the features. For instance, a card may show a valley glacier, and such questions as these may be asked: What kind of a glacier is shown here? What are the other types of glaciers? |