difficult of attainment, and I think that it is a fair question whether we are not expecting too much original work from boys and girls with non-mathematical minds. Still, we are concerned now only with the quantity of college requirements, and my quarrel with the geometry requirement is that original work has been added without any reduction of book work. The theory, of course, is that the pupil who can solve "originals" does not need to go thru the full catalog of book propositions. The theory, however, does not fully conform to the facts. There is a certain body of propositions forming a logical, connected development of the subject, and constituting what may be called the elements of geometry. They are fundamental, and in the older text-books they were the only ones. given. Modern text-books have added largely to the number, propositions that are interesting and sometimes valuable, but that are distinctly not essential. Their solution often depends on some special device or turn of reasoning that would not occur to an ordinary student, certainly not in the stress of an examination, and they must therefore be studied and learned as "book work." I am told that propositions of this latter class amount to approximately one-half of the number contained in modern text-books. In other words, the old requirement of plane geometry has not only been increased almost 100 per cent. by the addition of non-essential propositions, but also by the requirement of original work. Harvard, which has led the way in the demand for original work, issues a syllabus of propositions which it regards as essential, and confines its demands for book work strictly to these. This is a rational plan, and is to be commended, but the other colleges call for the full number of propositions contained in the modern text-books, and have also decidedly increased their demands for original work. The wording of the geometry requirement in the college catalogs remains substantially unchanged, but the quantity of work called for by that requirement has been substantially enlarged.

Latin is rated as 4 points-20 periods-and this I have no hesitation in condemning as inadequate. I know that the work is frequently done in this time, just as I know that a bright

boy has sometimes covered the whole ground in three years or even less, but the fact remains that for the majority of pupils the time is too short to do the work properly. Almost every school that I know of that has a four year Latin course, feels, I think, that the work has to be done under high pressure, and a considerable number of students of fair ability and good working power are unable to maintain the pace, and fall by the wayside. Latin is one of our best-taught subjects, but I fancy that in the majority of schools it is found to be the subject in which the pressure is greatest.

Greek is allowed 3 points or 15 periods, and this is an adequate allotment. Greek is not an easy subject, but it should be covered comfortably in the time allowed and can be done in less.

The modern language, whether German or French, is assigned 10 periods, and this again may be regarded as a fair, tho not a generous allowance. That is, it is time enough in which to meet the requirement, but a modern language above all things ought to be studied in a somewhat leisurely fashion, with plenty of opportunity for practice, for drill, and for assimilation.

Ancient history is rated as I point, and 5 periods is a satisfactory allowance. So far, I have spoken only of the subjects included in the classical requirements at Yale and Princeton, but when we pass to the subjects accepted by these and other colleges as alternatives for Greek, we find that the same thing holds true. Five periods, for example, is merely a fair allowance for solid geometry and trigonometry. It was a fair allowance also for physics a few years ago, but I question whether it is sufficient now, since the mathematical side has been so strongly emphasized. The modern school course in physics may be admirably adapted to the pupil who intends to specialize in the subject, but for the general student it is by no means the best course that could be planned, and it is too severe to be completed thoroly in one year, especially if any adequate treatment of the descriptive side of the subject is attempted.

From this analysis of the requirements, it will be seen, I

think, that every one of the subjects can be covered in the time allotted, but that in the majority of them the allotment is scanty rather than generous; that is, to complete the work in the time assigned, high pressure is necessary. Possibly it would be true to say that almost any one of the subjects could be covered comfortably in the time specified, provided too great demands were not made on the pupil's time and strength in other directions. It makes a great difference whether a pupil can give two hours or only one to the preparation of a lesson, and every class teacher knows that he can do better work and cover more ground with his classes, if the demands in other directions are not too great. It makes a difference, also, whether the pupil's attention and energy are concentrated on three or four subjects, or scattered over seven or eight. The trouble is that our requirements have been shaped by specialists whose interest has been in the subject rather than in the student, and frequently, it would appear, the demands made in other directions have not been fully realized.

We have seen that the 16 point requirement which we have been considering is based on the expectation of 80 periods of high pressure work, that is, 20 periods a week for four years. Now the question of how many recitations per week a student can wisely carry is largely a local issue. It depends on a great variety of circumstances, and the number varies in different schools. In general, however, where the number of recitations is larger than normal, the amount of preparation expected is smaller, and the ground covered in each recitation is less. It means that more of the work is done in class and less outside, not that more work is done in the same time. A school with 25 recitations a week would have to devote proportionately more periods to algebra or Greek than a school with 20 recitations a week, so that the argument which fits one scale will apply with equal force, tho with changed figures, to the other.

The Committee of Ten prescribed 20 periods a week as the proper number, but I recall that a chorus of protest went up from schoolmasters, many of whom claimed that 15 was nearer the proper mark. Count on 20 recitations a week,

say five in Latin, five in Greek or physics, and the remaining 10 divided among mathematics, history, English and a modern language, the work in each study being planned on the basis of the total time allowance given above. Of course, it can be done we are doing all sorts of unwise things in our schools-but I doubt if you can find a schoolmaster who feels that it is wisely done.

Two or three points should be noted in passing. The Committee of Ten named 20 periods per week, but expressly stipulated that this was to be the maximum, not the normal, number, and also further stated that where the full number of periods was given, at least five of the 20 should be unprepared. It appears to be the assumption of the collegeswhere they consider the matter at all—that they may reasonably frame requirements demanding 20 prepared recitations a week. I have no hesitation in asserting that the required work cannot be done in the number of periods assigned to each subject if one quarter of the assigned periods are given to unprepared recitations. On the strength of the Committee of Ten's report, the colleges are demanding what the Committee of Ten never dreamed of authorizing.

In the second place, if the maximum number of recitations that a pupil can carry must be given to the bare college requirements, what opportunity is left for drawing, music, manual training, elocution, penmanship or spelling, some at least of which have a place in the education of youth? College requirements leave small time for anything else.

Still another point that should be considered is the proportion of the required work that must be done in the last two years. It cannot be evenly divided between the four years, partly because so much of the work calls for the maturity of the later years, and partly because it must be kept fresh for the college examinations. For instance, history may very advantageously be studied in the first year of the school course, but to meet the standard set up in history by the College Entrance Examination Board is too great a task for the powers of a first-year student, and even if he could accomplish it successfully, he could not hold it in memory and be ready for

an examination two years later. The result is that the work is congested in the last two years. It has to be done with greater intensity, and it is necessary to carry too many subjects abreast. It was forcibly pointed out a year ago by one of our own number that whereas the colleges generally will not allow their freshman to pursue more than four or five studies at most at the same time, they force the sub-freshman, the younger, less capable schoolboy, to carry six, seven, or eight studies abreast. It is a menace to thoro scholarship, and it is a crime to the student. I firmly believe that one great cause of the pressure of college entrance requirements is the number of subjects that the pupils are compelled to carry at the same time. The quantity of work is too great, and it is made worse by being spread over too many subjects.

Thus far in this discussion, you may have noticed, I have spoken of nothing but a four years' course. The two questions naturally suggest themselves: Would not the difficulty be obviated by the establishment of a six year high school course? and, Is not the trouble done away with in private schools where such a course is feasible? To these questions I reply, first, that we have to deal with things as they are, not as they might be, or even as they may be. The four year high school course is what we have; a large proportion of college students are prepared in the public high schools, and it is probable that in the future the proportion will become larger instead of smaller. If this is the case, the question as to what the colleges may rightly demand must be considered with reference to what can be done in a four year course. In the second place, I reply that, while the conditions in schools fortunate enough to have a five or six year course may be slightly easier, yet the difference is not as great as might be imagined, and even in those schools the pressure is still beyond all reason. The mortality may be somewhat less than in high schools where a high grade of scholarship is maintained, and where the number of students dropped, simply because they cannot maintain the pace, is something appalling, but the fact remains that even in the most. fortunately situated schools the pressure is altogether too great. That is a fact, not a theory, and the reason is not far