thought lucid. Under these conditions the teacher has full opportunity to enthuse his students with a true inspiration for knowledge and a desire to get to the bottom of the subject. When talking to notebooks rather than minds it is next to impossible to create any such enthusiasm. I refer you to Spencer, or any other great educational writer, for proof that this is good pedagogy.

The technical instructor is recompensed more generously than is necessary for the services of a mere drill master, quizzer or reader of lectures. This recompense is given not only on account of his broad knowledge of the subject, but also very largely for his ability to give those under his instruction the personal inspiration of which I have spoken. A college faculty of drill masters can drive students to work with much diligence in preparing their lessons for the purpose of making good recitations and examinations, but at the end of four years under the direction of such a faculty a young man, even though he be graduated with honors, may be both superficial and lacking. He will be lacking in the initiative, the ability to reason for himself, the breadth of grasp, and the logical processes of mind that are developed largely by personal contact with teachers who can inspire a true love of knowledge, divorced from the machinery of grades and examinations.

"What is the most difficult task in this world”? asks a great philosopher of himself and replies, "To think." This question has been so asked and answered many times in this meeting. It is to train young men to think after having inspired in them a love of knowledge, that is the duty of the scientific teacher; and to think, he must be taught to under

stand the impressions he receives and to draw deductions therefrom. This is pure Emersonian teaching. The instructor is presumably a thinker; if he is not, he should not be a teacher. He should be able to impress his mental processes upon a boy developing under him. In order to do this he must make himself mentally transparent to the untrained minds about him. Certainly the instructor does this most fully who, while standing before his class, holds every eye and is in intimate communion with every mind; he is able then to perceive just how far his ideas and thoughts are absorbed and how much they rebound from unresponsive intellects; and he is able with this knowledge to so vary his presentation that it will have many sides and points of view until finally it becomes acceptable to even the most sluggish minds in the class. Frequently before the inspector has graven the impression of his ideas upon each mind it is necessary for him to make use of one or more of those under his instruction, calling upon them to express in their own words, with suitable guidance, the thoughts to be developed.

It is evident that if the lecturer, or better the teacher, wishes to impress himself and his knowledge upon his class, his whole mental force must be expended directly upon the minds of those whom he would influence, unhampered and unhindered by constraint or barrier of any kind. Lecture notes written by students or any other similar distractions seriously hinder the accomplishment of this object and should therefore be rigorously eliminated.

Let the student have a text-book if possible. If this is not available, let him have at least a set of prepared lecture notes; assign him all the references

and collateral reading that he can master; but when lecturing to him or rather teaching him, do so untrammelled by any conventional barriers that will weaken the impress of your thought upon his mind. Whatever excuse may be offered for hampering, by the lecture method, the instruction of upper classmen in applied science, which is ever changing, there can be no semblance of an excuse for injuring the work of freshmen or sophomores by burdening them with the lecture note system or any other similar scholastic contrivance.

These suggestions apply not only to engineering subjects, but also to chemistry, physics, mathematics; indeed, to all study not devoted solely to the cultivation of the memory.

DISCUSSION.

PROFESSOR MERRIMAN: There are two ways in which the student can take in ideas and make them his own, by the eye and the ear. The eye method is that of the reading of books; in the ear method the student hears the words of the lecture. Both methods have their advantages, but it seems probable that the average boy can more easily take in ideas by ear, and therefore it does not seem best that instruction should be given solely by text-books.

Every one present, when going away from here this afternoon, will have a clear idea of what has been orally given by Professor Jackson. Had we read the same matter in print, the impressions in our minds would certainly have been much less definite.

PROFESSOR F. C. CALDWELL: I agree most fully with the author of the last paper in the matter of keeping up of lecture notes. I have always felt that the copy

ing of the lecture notes is usually a misuse of the student's time. As a general thing, lecture notes are of little value as a permanent possession, though as a means of acquiring the information covered by the course, they may be valuable if properly taken down and worked up. Most students need careful instruction and training in this matter and the practice which a student can thus obtain in taking down the essential features of a subject without attempting to write it out verbatim, is most valuable and I believe should form a part of every student's training. In my own work I urge the students not to copy their notes, but to learn to take them down in such shape that they can make use of them afterwards.

PROFESSOR SWAIN: I agree entirely with the author of the paper, if I understand him correctly. I think the character of the notes should depend upon the character of the subject. In theoretical or mathematical subjects, where students should frequently stop to think, I think the lecture system is not applicable. In such courses a text-book should be studied outside.

PROFESSOR MERRIMAN: I do not think the lecture method is applicable to mathematical subjects. There are, however, many topics which can be advantageously presented in lectures, especially descriptive subjects like that of sanitary engineering, and this method seems to give a greater interest to students than when they read a book and recite upon it. It is a benefit to a class to take notes of lectures, because the ability to take notes and to properly reproduce and expand them is a desirable accomplishment. The copying and reproduction of the blackboard sketches used in a lecture is also very profitable. Many lectures should not be given, but two or three per week

afford a pleasant change from reading and formal recitation.

PROFESSOR SWAIN: Regarding Professor Merriman's remarks, I should like to ask how far he considers it desirable to go into descriptive work in engineering courses. Some subjects involve a great deal of descriptive matter, and lectures on such subjects have their proper place in that kind of work. For my part, my tendency is to give less and less descriptive work, going into it only so far as to illustrate principles. I think we are trying to teach too many things in our engineering schools, and that we do not get the results that we think we do. There is a great tendency on the part of all of us to overestimate the results we get and the capacity of students we are dealing with. What they need is a few simple principles thoroughly hammered in, and it takes continual hammering to make much of an impression.

I think we need to teach a few things, repeatedly illustrating them until they are thoroughly understood by the student. With that object in mind, I think that text-books ought generally to be provided, and illustrated in the class-room.

PROFESSOR MARSTON: I have recently had some experience in delivering a course of lectures to engineering students, the subject being "Engineering History." As you know, there is no text-book available treating this subject.

I had believed that it would be feasible to present the subject properly to a class of seniors if in the beginning they were given instruction as to the methods of taking lecture notes and if the lecturer should take pains to clearly outline his lectures and call attention to the most important points.

After examining the notebooks kept by the students,