fr.l
13
THE HESrERlAN
l!
m
L
tive to bias, mid more stimulating to pro
gross than an inquiry into motives, and a
frank disavowal of one so unworthy. If
such a reason turns the balance against a
revolution in mothod of study let us discard
it and take an unprejudiced inventory of
an argument.
The strongest argument for the present
system say of our work hero in the Uni
versity is that a division of time between
from live to eight or nine subjects a day
furnishes necessarv mental relaxation by
change of work. The change may bo
allowed to bo necessary, but can it be pro
vided only by a change of Biibject? It may
well bo questioned whether this constant,
periodic change of subject be not one of
diffusion rather than of relaxation. The
tension of mental steam is by no moans
lessened because the train of thought is
switched to another track. The lino of
thought is broken, the results of experiment
are often vitiated by interruption or delay;
reference reading is disconnected because of
of short period. Energy is rather lost than
conerved.
It is more probable that the average
student needs relief from pressure more
than ho needs frequent change of work.
This pressure is not the result of too much
work but of too many lines of work. The
conscientious student is oppressed with the
feeling that the time this study needs and
must have cannot fail to rob the next of the
time it needs and must have. So ho fights
with his conscience; and inclination weakens,
then conquoars, will. The relief ho needs is
from a continual call foa choice and dis
crimination, and that relief can only bo in a
chance to give deliberate, well planned,
effort to a single lino of work; and every
lino of work which is worth pursuing at all,
is worth consecutive, thoughtfully directed
and surely executed effort upon itself, and is
only half done when it receives the more
residue of time from somo other work,
which, because it has tho student's interest
has taken his time and exhausted his
energy.
Every student, worthy of a name which
in its origin includes tho very idea of
uzoal," has a certain amount of honest
effort to dovoto to his school work. Every
day receives its share of that effort. It by
no moans follows that each subject receives
a share proportionate to tho time allowed it
in tho curriculum, or oven in tho students
own program. Eew students have enough
(strength of purpose to allot time and energy
to interesting and non-interesting subjects
alike. Can this have any other result than
that the same student is credited in differont
departments with unequal amounts of zoal,
and unequal power of application ?
Give tho same student tho advantages of
the system of major and minor studies,
better still that which is tho ideal of tho
system, lot him devote his time to one study
at a time in a judicious manner and note tho
inevitable profit. Tho strong ground hero
lies in tho major premiso of our last argu
ment. "Each day will receivo its share of
tho students energies. " Now, with liis
effort confined to one subject, where else
will it bo expended than upon that study
regardless of its interest for him? Tho
interest may bo no greator now than boforo
although the chances nro that it will in
crease with diminished division of atten
tion ; yet without it how can tho results of
this work bo otherwise than an improve
ment upon tho time when his activities
wore dissipated and his attention distracted
by a half dozen demands from different
directions.
Innumerable oxampleb might bo adduced
where, in particular instances of daily work,
tho results of a change of method would bo
such as have been indicated. Lecture might
bo followed immediately by experiment (by
tho student) upon tho same topic or by
reading along tho same lino, or reading by
experiment, or vice versa, or reading and ex
periment might accompany each other with
advantage impossible in isolated, single
hour periods. In those ways the mothod
commends itself especially to scientific