On the Firing Line in Education

, and the "Western Journal of Education" (

e same as if I pass it in the nineties. What is the use of wasting time and effort in securing a high average?" He then suggests a system of marking which "would not only fix a minimum of quality, but would also recognize different degrees of quality by giving more credit toward graduation for high quality than for low," which system, he thinks, would also tend to "a strengthening of the intellectual life of the secondary school." Mr. Secor does not claim to be the originator of the idea, giving to President Hyde of Bowdoin that doubtful honor. He also refers to two articles in the Educational

e to examine some parts of Mr. Secor's article and in the process of that examination briefly discuss the so-called "Credit-for-quality" idea. I shall be materially aided in such discussion by my experience with the practical workings of the system in the University of North Dakota, and shall take the opportunity of letting the educational world know how the system is working and how it is being regarded in the institution in which it has

system at all, even when dealing with students of college rank, much more seriously, then, when applied to those of the secondary school who are four years younger, much less mature, and therefore less able to profit by the meritorious features and at the same time withstand the weakening influences attendant upon the system. Indeed, I think its adoption in the secondary schools would be nothing short of a calamity. Another reason why I feel impelled to speak is that reference is made in Mr. Secor's article to the working of the system in the insti

dred to one hundred twenty-five students. The grading has had to be done three times a year, since our school year, up to the present time, has been separated into three terms. Let me also make plain the fact t

credit towards graduation for quality as well as for quantity, but of this I am very much in doubt, especially in dealing with secondary students. It does not sufficiently take into consideration the value of content, and that, it seems to me, is a factor that should not be disregarded. I think I value as highly as most me

made to artificial incentives to secure it, I think that incentives can be found much more in keeping with the general spirit and purpose of education than the constant appeal to the commercial value of the grades being obtained. The ordinary monthly report card sent to the home, on which the quality of work being done in the various subjects is indicated by "excellent," "good," "poor," etc., and even by the too common "per cent," is artificial stimulus enough. Every teacher knows what an incentive the report card can be made. To be sure, teachers differ greatly in their ability to use this card skilfully, but so used it can exert great power. Not long ago I discust this "Credit-for-quality" matter with a

sion extends, well-developed manhood and womanhood. Their chief desire is not to slide thru. The two immediate ends normally in view are consciousness of progressive growth and appreciation from parent and teacher. How eager the majority are for this appreciation is well known to all. All the stimulus needed, in addition to what the subjects and the student's own desire furnish, the resourceful teacher has at hand wrapt up in his own personality. If any o

e "Credit-for-quality") "puts a premium on thorough-going scholarship by enabling the student to come up for graduation without being forced to study so many subjects that he is not able to do any of them well." If our secondary school courses are so arranged as to force the student "to study so many subjects that he is not able to do any of them well," then something is radically wrong with the courses of study. But no evil can be remedied by introducing a greater. As a matter of fact, the application of the system does not lead to "thorough-going scholarship," at least not in the University of North Dakota where, for five years, an honest and faithful effort has been made

ven be a workable scheme when put to the test," he says. Let me say that here, after five years' use, it is not proving to be satisfactorily "

an in an Outlook article of August 2nd, 1902, but evidently lacking the courage of his conviction did not introduce it into his own institution, preferring, seemingly, that the experiment be made elsewhere. This has been, from the start, very suggestive to me. I have some admiration for President Hyde

ote of the Columbia system more than three years ago, and only a couple of months after its adoption; nor does he say anything as to its success,-in fact, he could not, for there was nothing to say. He merely explained the new system and gave voice to his expectations. The Columbia system may be proving "highly satisfactory," but surely that article does not say that it is. And when the other article is analyzed, the case is found to be somewhat similar. Professor Kennedy wrote on the system in the University of North Dakota nearly two years ago, fully two academic years, for the article appeared in December, 1906, before the

still larger number would disagree. He might write as strongly of his own belief in the theoretical soundness of the system, but that is quite another matter. As a matter of fact, during the last two years the weaknesses of the system have become

y only would hardly recognise it as planned for use next year (quite different in detail from that now in use) save in the fundamental principle. That remains the same; the institution desires to secure a better quality of work from its students; it also desires to enable the student of exceptional ability or

ut the system; or, to put it in another way, no one would be bold enough to say that our students are doing better work than the students of similar institutions th

overbalanced by the time she gave to outside work-to library assistance for remuneration, and to journalism. And that gait was being struck by others. It only remained to be seen how long the wind would hold out. It was clearly possible. But the faculty became alarmed. Clearly recognizing the above stated possibility and being wholly unwilling thus to lower its high standard, it passed a resolution that arbitrarily limits the number of credits a student may receive in a given time to such an extent as to prevent graduation in less than three years. But several have gained, and

owledge for knowledge's sake, truth for truth's sake. They can be taught to see farther ahead than the close of the term, and something more precious than an extra three-tenths of a credit. But this thought has already been sufficiently treated earlier in the article. (2) It leads to faulty methods of study and unsatisfactory final results. In the preparation of the lessons, a good recitation, rather than thoro understanding of the subject matter, is too apt to be the objective point. Many good students have told me that they find it difficult to resist the tendency to subordinate und

y I doubt it), is very greatly increased if not largely caused by our system of marking. In hopes of remedying this some of the students are now urging the adoption of the "honor system" of conducting examinations. (6) It is impossible to create uniform standards corresponding to our various grades. There are as many standards for each grade as there are instructors. A grade of work for which one instructor would give an "A" (1.3), another would give a "B" (1.2) and still another a "C" (1.0). Standards can not be fixt.

entive, and (2) it does enable students to shorten the period of undergraduate work. I grant them both, but I hold that the in

college work, drinking from the pure fountains of literature, of history, of philosophy, of science, of art, et cetera, be broader in range and more fully equipt for the varied and complicated duties of life and for life's enjoyment, than he would be with only three years thus spent? And is not the fourth year by far the best of the four? Why shall you and I discourage him from doing that which we know to be well for him and which he is willing to do? Why deny him the rare fruitage of that fourth year? Why say to him when he is just ready to enter into the enjoyments of his student life, "you would better go?" After all, is it not this very three-year student with his finer ability, his keener insight, and his greater industry who can most greatly profit by the extra year? Shall we not rather encourage him to stay longer and delve deeper and reach to the very heart of things? Whether looked at from the standpoint of the student's own advantage, or from that of the world at large, which is to profit by his equipment, is it not really the four-year or even the five-year student who would better be excused at the end of the third year? Instead of being in a hurry to send our choice students away, let us get them to do

ers-the curricula are more fixt-but that is far from being the only reason for the exclusion. And even more suggestive as touching the secondary school extension recommended by the article under discussion, is our recent action excluding the system from our preparatory department, now being transformed into a model high school for Teachers College. This elimination, likewise, was in part due to the fixt numb

e heard of it to learn that the University of North Dakota long since discarded the system. It was voted out completely early in the year 1910. And thus was realized Professor Kennedy's appreh

OT

aduate departments. Graduate schools have become very particular, some of them not being satisfied without passing in review well nigh the entire former school life of an applicant, apparently to assure

entering the University of Illinois as an applicant for the doctorate. Here it was that her troubles began, and all because she had thus "profited" way back in her undergraduate days. She was told that the year "saved" would now have to be made up-that the period of study for her doctorate would have to be at least three years, and this in spite of the fact that she held the degree of Master of Arts from a state university of the first class, and was planning to continue along the same lines of work. After considerable discussion and institutional negotiation, this mu

hor

N

emie

54-56, 67, 68, 74

211, 2

educatio

peop

's Cyclo

metic

rs,

d, Hen

ate, O

et,

ducation, 4

College,

k, Lut

Robert,

of Educ

olas Murray,

rnia,

ter

68, 116, 117, 121, 140

, 43, 45, 4

-Welf

, 133,

War, 1

, 104, 110, 16

w,

Arts, 84

reparation

s, 45,

ner of Ed

ty Serv

ticut,

aining Sc

Quality" Sys

n, Dr

, 144

1-34, 41, 65, 17

t of Educ

John,

Presid

y, Mr

Edmund

cat

, 45, 84,

au o

f, 108, 109,

tary,

81, 82, 83,

ve i

phy of,

, 50, 66

es of, 8

ssion

in North D

83-85, 10

y, 75, 8

ersa

al mesure

psychologist

Review, 24

l Survey,

66, 67, 73, 74, 105,

nd, 3

uirements, 4

t, Du

ydem

118, 120,

Govern

seph W.,

esident, 9

e, 32

the Grea

ck Will

ebe

, ex-Pre

rgi

ns, 3

, 32, 1

William Ewa

ha,

ment,

, North Dak

k, 9

ick

r. Willia

ollege, 6

S. L.,

bar

55, 63-86, 107, 108, 22

46-49, 80-85, 178,

James

ry, 1

ucation, 81,

6, 66,

r, 9

esident,

eracy

ism, Theor

gislatur

n City,

, Hiram

avid Star

fessor, 244,

ool of,

ip, 75-8

method

oln,

re, 232,

orge, Da

ke,

ellow

ngele

the, of F

Mr., 2

orace,

, 24, 25, 31,

ection, 22,

School o

aching, 81, 8