THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT ON THE UNIVERSITY (4th LETTER) Madison, Wis., April 11, 1912 To Teachers and the General PublicWisconsin is educationally top-heavy. It is equally true that the state university is itself top-heavy. Recently the president of a western state university in a public address spoke of the graduate school as constituting the "genuine university." Our own state institution is more fully committed to the theory of looking after the interests of the one in ten or fifteen who already have a college diploma than is any other state institution with which I am acquainted. Such a procedure is justifiable on the basis that the relatively few students who have completed the four years of college work and are enrolled in the university for graduate studies are of more importance than the many who are in the freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior classes. I do not believe such a position can be maintained by argument for a moment among intelligent people outside college walls. The mere statement of the conditions is sufficient refutation of the most elaborate and wordy arguments in defense of such a theory. The fact is that in large part the shortcomings of our institution are due to the great emphasis placed upon this small fraction of university work, coupled as it is with the unduly magnified importance of the research idea. The university of Wisconsin is maintained by the people chiefly for the sake of the boys and girls who go to college, including the college of engineering, of agriculture, and the like, and not for the few who continue their studies beyond college. The center of gravity of the state university should be in the colleges, particularly in the college of letters and science, which may properly be looked upon as the heart of the institution. Here the most capable teachers should be employed, especially in the instruction of freshman and sophomores. Parents send their boys and girls to the university to take up college work assuming that they will have the best possible instruction. But with certain notable exceptions here and there, they cannot get the best instruction until they have been in college at least two years. I have in the past four or five years talked with many graduates of the university who say that not to exceed one-half of the instruction they received could be called good. The other half fell below that standard. It should be borne in mind also that these students as a rule did their utmost to select for themselves the capable teachers. If you ask university authorities why this is so, they will tell you that it is because they have not money enough to employ strong and capable teachers. At least that is what they have told me. If the center of gravity of the instititution were in the college instead of the graduate school, this condition would not exist. The colleges would be looked after first, and then such money, time, energy, and teaching ability as remained for the graduate school would be devoted to it. A study of the students in any graduate school usually reveals certain rather striking facts. One is that a goodly number of them, say one-third, are on pay either in the form of fellowships or salaries. If my count is correct, about 126 are at this time on the pay roll of the university. These pupils are giving instruction or assisting in laboratories while carrying on their advanced studies. Except for a few rather flourishing departments, the number of graduate students in any one subject is small. The efforts to secure these graduate students are often strenuous. Professors frequently urge students to remain with them after graduation and efforts are often made to secure students from other colleges and universities at the close of their senior year. They are tempted with fellowships yielding $400 a year, or teaching positions yielding $600 a year, or positions in the capitol paying a like amount. It may be interesting at this point to remember that university professors quite frequently say that many of the graduate students manifest very ordinary ability. Indeed it is said that many of them at college graduation are not successful in securing good positions and hence continue their studies in the hope that something worth while may later turn up. The most highly prized degree students get on the completion of their advanced study is called the degree of doctor of philosophy (Ph. D.) To secure this degree a student must continue in the university three years after graduating from a four year college course. These graduates These graduates are often called specialists or experts. Does the world seem eager to secure the services of these experts? The president of a great state university remarked a few years ago, partly in jest, that you could get such men by the car load at $1,000 a year. Some are more fortunate than this, however, and get salaries as high as $1,500. But few get more than $1,200 unless they are unusually mature in years and successful in experience. Last June our university turned out seventeen such graduates, or about three for every hundred who completed the regular college course and received a bachelor's degree. On the average, these students received over $500 each last year from the university. Six did not receive any money. Where are these people at the present time and what are they doing? Three of them are instructors in our university. The only woman in the class is now married and living in Madison. The other thirteen are scattered to the four winds, but all of them are outside the state. From a common sense point of view, is it worth all the pother that is made about it? Should the center of gravity be in the graduate school? A distinguished educator and citizen of Boston said in the Popular Science Monthly for October, 1908, "The curse of American scholar ship and of American education is the Ph. D." And so it is, if it diverts attention from the proper education of the mass of college students. Respectfully yours, C. P. CARY, State Superintendent. Soldier, Rest! Soldier, rest! thy warfare o'er, Sleep the sleep that knows not breaking; Dream of battle fields no more, Days of danger, nights of waking. In our isle's enchanted hall, Hands unseen thy couch are strewing, Every sense in slumber dewing. No rude sounds shall reach thine ear, Mustering clan, or squadron tramping. Yet the lark's shrill fife may come At the day break from the fallow, And the bittern sound his drum, Booming from the sedgy shallow. Ruder sounds shall none be near; Guards nor warders challenge here; Here's no war-steed's neigh and champing, Shouting clans, or squadrons stamping. THE NEW SCHOOL BUILDING AT THORPE The citizens of Thorpe are justly proud of their new school building which was recently dedicated. This structure is 54 90 feet, contains six rooms, one of which is for the high school and has a seating capacity of eighty-two pupils; in the basement is a large gymnasium; there is also a room for domestic science, a principal's office, a library, and cloak and toilet rooms. The building is built of brick and tile with a slate roof. Bubbling fountains, the fan system of ventilation, dry closets, hot air heat, hardwood floors, and other modern features make an ideal schoolhouse. The cost of the building is about $25,000. -Sir Walter Scott DO WE HAVE LANGUAGE AS A SUBJECT OF STUDY IN THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM? H. S. Hippensteel, Stevens Point Normal T may seem strange that one should think of such a question and extraordinarily singular to presume to discuss the question in an Educational Journal. However, the practices in many schools, the papers presented upon the subject of language teaching by many Normal students, and even many of the texts or parts of them are proof that the question is a perti nent one. It is not an uncommon thing to find a teacher spending the language period discussing facts concerning some object of nature, or telling some story to the class. After this a few questions may be answered or perchance some effort may be made to reproduce orally or in writing some elements of this discussion. When the purpose of these discussions is sought, we are given the answer, which is supposed to settle all doubts; viz, "We cannot have expression until we have ideas to express." This does seem to be final, but we do not have nature study, history, and art for the sake of acquiring ideas? Wherein, then, is the peculiar province of language? Do ideas acquired carry expression with them? Without dealing with this question here, let it be said that the idea does not always carry an adequate expression. If it can be proved that the acquisition of ideas and the adequate expression of them are necessarily reciprocal, we are ridiculously absurd in our practice of devoting time to language work. It is surely a great waste. If the average student is examined, he shows a very limited vocabulary of descriptive terms. For instance, he has the concept round, but in expression he applies the term round to his ball, his pencil or the cover for his ink-well without realizing that he could have specifically described the different objects with the terms. sphericals, cylindrical and circular. From this illustration alone, it may be seen that there is need for a different kind of language work than many recitations show. Let it be noted that language has two sides. On the one hand it is a universal subject, having as its subject matter that which is common to all subjects of study. The object of thought must be studied. It would be impossible to think of language work without this. But on the other hand, language, if it is worthy of a place in our course, must be a special subject, having a province peculiarly its own. This province includes two things; viz, the expression of thought in language and this expression for the sake of communication. It is just at this point that much of the language work fails to justify itself. Time is consumed in doing that which should be done in other lines of work and little attention is given to the essential work of language. It is essential that the language teacher comes to realize that her duty concerns itself with the process of expression primarily and not with that which links language with every other subject. Much of the practice in schools shows that the language hour is taken up with the acquisition of ideas about the leaf, the moth, the story, the historical character or the picture. No one denies the absolute need of this work, but why should this be regarded as language work any more than nature study, literature, history or art? If the essential nature of language work is correctly suggested above, it is evident that the language lesson is yet come. Let us make some concrete applications of the argument advanced. Story telling is a new thing in many schools, a magnificent thing, but probably destined to be a much abused fad. There are many reasons why stories should be told and many of them are not in the province of the language work. Stories are interesting and tend to produce mental alertness such as no other primary work can bring. They establish fine relations between pupils and teacher. They teach ethical truths in an impressive manner. They may become the most potent force in disciplining a school. When the story is used as a device for aiding in the management of a school, it may have little direct bearing as language. We may go even to the extent of saying such bearing as some stories have, is entirely negative with respect to good expression. Not all the incorrect language habits originate in the home or on the street. Sad as it may be, it is true, nevertheless, that many children have acquired incorrect forms in the schoolroom and from the stories told. From the use of the interesting story of Epaminondas, "You haint got," may become an expression habitual with the child. However, the story may be made the basis for the best of language work, but it is not a language lesson until the child begins to view the expression as such. True, it may be reproduced, but this reproduction is too frequently only a test of the memory. If the reproduction is done with the purpose of making conscious the expression side, then, and then only, may we regard the story as language worthy of occupying the time set aside for this study. Pictures are regarded as legitimate basis for language lessons. Here again much of the time has been spent upon mere interpretation. Questions of all sorts have been asked. This is all well enough in its place, but it must not be regarded as language. We would make this interpretation, if an appreciation of art was the purpose. We surely would have many questions answered, if we wished the child to copy the pictures in water colors or by some other kind of art material. But, the study of the picture does become language when we pass beyond the interpretation and begin to consider the best expression of our ideas for the sake of communicating them. Here best may clearest or it may transcend the common place and seek for the most beautiful expression of the ideas. If the teacher wishes to study a model of this kind of language work, let her study Ruskin's interpretation of one of Turner's paintings. mean Likewise nature study forms the basis for language work, but a mere talk about leaves may have little to do with language as a study. Everyone recognizes that the class may become so engrossed with the object itself as to forget about expression. "Gee," may become a more common word at such moments than beautiful or any "polite expression." The teacher may become so enthused with the interest she has created that she forgets about errors in speech or may fear to break the spell with a criticism of a gross error. Such interest is always admired. It shows magnificent leadership, but it is not language as such. Right here it may be asked if it is not the purpose to have the child to see so clearly, or feel so intensely, that expression may be automatic. This may be a desirable end to reach; it must be remembered that good expression is not an inspiration. We must through a long and sometimes painful course take heed to our expression. Language is not a gift, it is an acquisition. Even poets make themselves, in part, at least. Language is an intellectual act. It manifests three phases. three phases. First there is the idea, second the imagined expressions of this idea, and third the judging as to which form most adequately sets forth the idea. Nature study topics, then, become language when the language act is made conscious. The child must be led to compare expressions for the ideas acquired and to choose the best one, according to his purpose for expression. It is a fine thing to commit poetry and here it is thought that language work is being done when such excellent language is conned by the child. But this may be a mere verbal memory drill or it may be an effort to teach a beautiful sentiment or an ethical truth. These last are all well enough, but it must be remembered that not even poetry forms a basis for language work proper, until the child is led to see the clearness, or the force, with which the idea is expressed, or the suggestiveness of the expression, or the beautiful form in which the idea is set forth. It has been the purpose of this article to show as clearly and forcibly as space permits what is vital in language work. Like all subjects we must deal with objects of thought, but it is language work only when we begin to study the object of thought in the specific manner of attempting to portray its fixed attributes, its changing attributes, its characteristic attributes or the relative importance of two or more of its attributes for the sake of communicating our ideas to another. If this view is held, many of the language lessons will be presented in an entirely different manner than they are today. Language will come to have a sphere distinctively its own. The lessons will be planned with specific aims and more rapid progress will be made in clear, forcible and elegant expression. SOME FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES IN THE TEACHING OF FIRST W YEAR ALGEBRA IX. HIGHER FACTORING TYPES AND APPLICATIONS WALTER W. HART, Asst. Professor of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin E shall consider briefly in this issue the last of the topics that were recommended in the September Wisconsin Journal of Education as suitable for a first year course in algebra. The nature of the factoring included under the topic Higher Factoring Types is suggested in the discussion of factoring given in the December Journal. We recall that only seven types of factoring were advised in that article as essential in a course which makes the equation the dominant topic, and that it was proposed to make skill and rapidity in handling the simple form only of these seven types the end of the study of them. This agreement excludes such cases of factoring as that of the type forms a2+ 2ab+b2c2, x4+x2y2+y4, xn-yn, etc., and the generalized form of the seven elementary types, such as (x-y)2+3 (xy)-21. It is proposed here that these omitted types be made the nucleus of the topic K. teaching of all branches of mathematics, (in this country somewhat tardily,) that a sane use of the "spiral" method of orgnizing mathematical material is desirable; that it is in fact essential to come back to ideas taught at some previous time and consider them again, from a higher point of view if possible. It is quite obvious that the arrangement of factoring proposed here is of the spiral size form. Undoubtedly a child has not gotten a desirable view of the different types of factoring until he learns that the numbers involved may be general number expressions; thus, in the case of the difference of two squares, he should learn that the numbers may be binomials as in, (a-b)2-(a+b)2. It is quite appropriate therefore to make this fact the subject of special study in a series of lessons, and, while doing so, to review the elementary types of factoring. Why should these omissions be made from the first chapter on factoring? First, because they are types of factoring that are not required in the solution of any of the equations that normally find a place in the first course; second, because this omission allows time for thorough drill upon the elementary forms, thus aiding the teacher in her efforts to develop in her class the almost mechanical efficiency in these elementary types which the later work in algebra demands; third, a phase of the second reason, because teachers of experience know that the attempt to teach well all of the types of factoring formerly given in high school algebras inevitably produces confusion in the minds of the pupils because of the great number of "cases" brought in, and that a disproportionate amount of time has to be taken from the course in order to accomplish anything like satisfactory results. These are three good reasons for omitting the types from the first chapter on factoring: at least one good reason may be given for gathering the omitted material together in a later chapter. It has become recognized in the teaching of arithmetic, and is being recognized more and more in the I have met teachers who say that this division of materials is unnecessary that they can teach and that their pupils can "get" all of the types of factoring which they themselves had when they studied algebra. They protest against making the course in algebra too "easy." Aside from my own experience in high school classes, I have had somewhat exceptional opportunities to observe the attempts of other teachers to include all of the traditional materials, and in every case have had my own opinion that such efforts are unwise only strengthened. It is indeed possible to get a degree of proficiency from the bright pupils in the class, but, for the majority of the class, the attempt will lead only to disappointments. I should say, I should say, however, that the greater number of experienced teachers approve of the limitation proposed in the December number, and of the gathering together of these topics in a later chapter. It is pertinent also to add that few superintendents or principals fear that the first course in algebra is being made too "easy." As a class, mathematics teachers have a quite commendable desire that the credits pupils receive in the classes shall be earned by an appropriate amount of |