Prof. W. M. Booth-I would like to ask Prof. Thwing what he considers the minimum training in mathematics and physics for a properly prepared physics teacher.

Prof. Charles B. Thwing-He should get all the training he can get. I would not specialize in mathematics and physics to the neglect of the other sciences. Elementary mathematics he ought to take, then trigonometry. I do not know that he needs calculus with his other training. It ought to be possible to experiment in the language the student understands already.

The idea I had was, that every teacher should have had a full course in mathematics to do satisfactory work in a high school. Possibly some succeed without it, but some do not.

Inspector Charles N. Cobb-I was reminded during the delivery of this paper of a little incident which happened last summer. One sunny, sultry, Sunday afternoon, there came up to my front porch in Albany a gentleman of my acquaintance who came on some church business. He brought with him his son, a young man who had completed a year's postgraduate work in chemistry. After the excuse for the call had been cared for, he spoke of the fact that his son thought of teaching chemistry, and that he thought, also, of becoming a professional chemist. His father was so situated that he could go on with his work for several years without providing any income, and the young man said he thought he would like to teach chemistry, but he thought possibly it might become monotonous. He thought he might have to teach the same thing year after year and it would be monotonous. I suggested to him that he might be teaching the same thing year after year, but that he would not be teaching it to the same persons; that, however, if his object in teaching chemistry was not to inculcate into his subjects as much as possible, but was simply to teach it, the probabilities were that it would become monotonous. On the contrary, if his object was to make men and women and to do it by teaching chemistry, it would not be monotonous at all.

I was glad that the reader of this paper referred to this same idea. I believe most heartily, that we should constantly remem

ber that the object in view in teaching is to make students who shall have the ability to think and to do.

This morning, I think it was, that reference was made to that little book of Prof. James (Talks to Teachers), in which he remarked that, "the best educated man is he that can do the most useful things with the least effort." I think we will all agree that the subject of physics will go as far to assist students to do useful things as any subject that is found in the curriculum. And I believe the teaching of physics will go farther. When I say to do things, I mean to do them not only with the hands, but the brain as well.

Again, if you will allow me to refer to my observations. As I go about the state I find not a few who are striving to teach physics who are not able to do things with their hands, teachers of physics who can not manipulate apparatus.

Some of you were present at the address of Prof. Nichols at the Ithaca meeting, and you remember that one of the things that he did that evening was to produce different types of vibrations of a cord. He remarked that the experiment was a suecess, but he also remarked afterward that he did not do as well the first time he tried it. The habit of manipulating on the part of the teacher is an important matter.

I believe that the teachers of physics are as well prepared as the teachers of many other subjects, but we have every reason to desire marked improvements.

Prof. Howard Lyon-There is one feature of the paper read today that was specially interesting to me-that in which the speaker called attention to the difficulty in learning physics, due to the abruptness of the subject-matter. It is to me one of the most important considerations to the teacher of physics and deserves a more extended reference than was given to it in the paper.

I wonder why the secondary schools do not adopt what is excellent in the methods of the colleges. These methods are not ideal but certainly in one respect they are right. The college plan does take into consideration the time element in its instruction.

An individual can not take his three meals in the morning but he must have an opportunity to repeat his meals as he can digest and assimilate them. Facts and principles in physics require time for mental digestion and assimilation.

I do not advocate a sweeping reform in our methods, but I do know that lessons in physics and science in general ean not be crowded to advantage. We try to teach physics in 20 or 40 weeks, and its new matter comes too abruptly to permit even superficial understanding in most cases. This fact is specially true in the case of girls whose early experience with reference to physical facts and phenomena is limited.

Expert opinion seems to differ as to the nature of the masculine and feminine mind, but I am sure that the difficulties that girls meet in physics arise not from the difference in their nature mainly, but from the poverty of their fund of observational knowledge.

Girls are not permitted to see mechanical devices in their childhood, and mothers seem reluctant to encourage observation and interpretation of physical phenomena. If girls could have a better opportunity to observe in their early life they would be better prepared for their high school work. If their training is not begun in their homes it should be begua in the school

room.

Every girl that I have ever taught has been a splendid student of physics if she has been what is termed a "tomboy" and she has always taken up her advanced work with enthusiasm. I am now teaching a girl who runs, jumps and throws a stone as well as a boy and she is an excellent student of physics.

Much is said of nature study. This instruction has, in a large manner, omitted experiments that have to do with physical forces. The phenomena of the air, of lightning, wind and storm are not less attractive than the phenomena of life. Why can we not begin in the grammar school with lessons concerning physical forces, something that would lead a boy or girl to understand mechanical devices? Why not let them have occasional lessons and simple explanations of principles that are

now restricted to high school pupils? Why can not the teacher present these lessons very simply, not as formal science but as simple practical instruction? I have seen marked results in later development in the case of students who had had simple lessons in their early training in physical phenomena.

Prof. Charles F. Binns-I am very much interested in this discussion of the study of physics and particularly the turn which the discussion has taken. I think that it is very evident that the girls might take a different attitude toward the subject of physics. I believe that the feminine mind will continue to measure her dress by her fingers. It is something like the Irishman who said, "It is twice the breadth of the length of my hand, and the width is as thick as a brick."

As a means of measuring the capacity of the teacher, it is out of the question to ask, how far it is necessary to go to qualify in a certain subject. The more reserve force a man possesses may be the measure of his success as a teacher, but knowledge is not the only necessity for the aptitude to teach successfully. It seems to me, that in this subject of physics the general aptitude for mechanics should come well to the front. most successful teacher is the one that can handle tools.

The

Prof. H. J. Schmitz-I am somewhat troubled in my teaching of physics to know the amount of theory to use in connection with it. I think the less theory we take the better it is. I should like to know what other teachers do.

Prof. C. B. Thwing-We are teaching half a dozen sciences in one and the student must be helped to remember a great many facts. A theory, even though not proved to be true, may be a great help to the student in classifying the facts and remembering them.

To illustrate, I sometimes tell a little "fairy story" to explain latent heat. Where does the energy go to that is used to melt a body? If we think of the molecules as having different dimensions along different axes it is possible that when a definite temperature is reached the molecules begin to rotate about their longer axes. This would consume energy and increase

the freedom of motion of the molecules without raising the temperature. The side bonds would be neutralized, while the end bonds hold the molecules together in the liquid form. When all the molecules have been put in rotation the temperature would again rise, till at the boiling point the molecules begin to rotate about their shorter axes and cohesion is entirely destroyed, and the gaseous state is reached.

The student is helped by such concrete pictures to master the abstract laws of the science.

PREPARATION AND TRAINING OF THE TEACHER OF CHEMISTRY

BY DR LYMAN C. NEWELL, STATE NORMAL SCHOOL, LOWELL (MASS.) A recent number of a popular educational journal contained the following significant statement, "One becomes weary of listening to the numerous descriptions of what the teacher ought to be, when teachers are and will continue to be just ordinary mortals." At a first glance this assertion seems true, but a more careful consideration leads us to conclude that it is a specious half truth. The programs of educational gatherings during the last five years in this country and in England have had one marked characteristic, viz, an unusually large num ber of papers and addresses on the art of teaching. This is specially true of those meetings devoted to science. At the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held at Denver in August 1901, seven papers on the teaching of chemistry were read before the Chemical section, one of them being the annual address of the vice-president and chairman of that section. These papers covered all branches of pedagogic chemistry, and their presentation confirms the view that, however weary some may be of hearing what a teacher and teaching should be, all are not disposed to ignore the public presentation of this means of improvement.

Believing this, I willingly accepted the invitation to present to you some thoughts on the preparation and training of the teacher of chemistry. Progress in teaching comes largely from consultation, comparison and publication. Bad methods can