Now these men, I believe, have gone to the other extreme.  They have confused custom and tradition with fundamental and eternal principles.  They have thought that, just because a thing is old, it is good, just as their antagonists have thought that just because a thing is new it is good.

In both cases, obviously, the scientific spirit is lacking.  The most fundamental of all principles is the principle of truth.  And yet these men who are teachers of science are—­both classes of them—­ruled themselves by dogma.  And meantime the sciences are in danger of losing their place in secondary education.  The rich promise that was held out a generation ago has not been fulfilled.  Within the last decade, the enrollment in the science courses has not increased in proportion to the total enrollment, while the enrollment in Latin (which fifteen years ago was about to be cast upon the educational scrap heap) has grown by leaps and bounds.

Now this is a type of a great many controversies in education.  We talk and theorize, but very seldom do we try to find out the actual facts in the case by any adequate tests.

It was the lack of such tests that led us at the University of Illinois to enter upon a series of impartial investigations to see whether we could not take some of these mooted questions out of the realm of eternal controversy, and provide some definite solutions.  We chose among others this controversy between the economic scientists and the pure scientists.  We took a high-school class and divided it into two sections.  We tried to place in each section an equal number of bright and mediocre and dull pupils, so that the conditions would be equalized.  Then we chose an excellent teacher, a man who could approach the problem with an open mind, without prejudice or favor.  During the present year he has been teaching these parallel sections.  In one section he has emphasized economic applications; in the other he has taught the class upon the customary pure-science basis.  He has kept a careful record of his work, and at stated intervals he has given both sections the same tests.  We propose to carry on this investigation year after year with different classes, different teachers, and in different schools.  We are not in a hurry to reach conclusions.

Now I said that the safeguard in all work of this sort is to keep our grip firm and fast on the eternal truths.  In this work that I mention we are not trying to prove that either pure science or applied science interests our pupils the more or helps them the more in meeting immediate economic situations.  We do not propose to measure the success of either method by its effect upon the bread-winning power of the pupil.  What we believe that science teaching should insure, is a grip on the scientific method and an illuminating insight into the forces of nature, and we are simply attempting to see whether the economic applications will make this grip firmer or weaker,