Directing the pupils’ study is sometimes regarded as a more or less formalized scheme of organization and procedure, which requires extra time, extra teachers, and a lesser degree of independence on the part of the pupils.  But here too the important things are differentiation and specific direction as adapted to the needs of the subject, the topic or the pupils.  It must be insisted that supervised study is not the same thing in all schools, in all subjects, or for all pupils.  In other words, its very purpose is defeated if it is overformalized.  An experiment is reported by J.H.  Minnick with two classes in plane geometry,[62] of practically the same size, ability, and time allowance for study, which indicated that the supervised pupils were the less dependent as judged by their success in tests consisting of new problems.  The pupils also liked the method, in spite of their early opposition, and no one failed, while two of the unsupervised class failed.  William Wiener also speaks of the wonderful self-control which springs from the supervised study program.[63] As to the need of extra teachers for the purpose there is not much real agreement, since the plans of adaptation are so different in themselves.  Increased labor for the same teachers will rightly imply greater renumeration.  Colvin makes mention of the additional expense imposed by the larger force of teachers required.[64] But J.S.  Brown finds that the failures are so largely reduced that with fewer repeaters there is a consequent saving in the teaching force.[65] With a faculty of 66 teachers, he reports 38 classes in which there was no failure, and a marked reduction of failures in general by the use of supervised study.  It is interesting and significant to note here that by allowing 100 daily pupil recitations to the teacher the repeated subjects reported in this study would require 87 teachers for one semester or 11 teachers for the full four years.  This fact represents more than $50,000 in salaries alone.  Buildings, equipment, heat, and other expenses will more than double the amount.  But such expense is incomparable with what the pupils pay in time, in struggles, and in disappointment in order to succeed later in only 66.7 per cent of the subjects repeated.  As none of the eight schools provided anything more definite than a general after school hour for offering help, and which often has a punitive suggestion to it, the possibility of saving many of these pupils from failure and repetition by the wise and helpful direction of their study is simply unmeasured.  A conclusion that is particularly encouraging is reported by W.C.  Reavis to the effect that the poorer pupils—­the ones who most need the direction—­are the ones that supervised study helps the most.[66] There is nothing novel in saying that good teaching and good studying are but different aspects of the same process, but it would be an innovation to find this conception generally realized in the school practice.