Two of the terms most frequently met in recent educational publications are statistical methods and individual differences.  There is nothing particularly new in this latter term—­it merely represents a new emphasis being given to the old idea that no two of us are alike.  Every parent is aware of the very marked differences in his children.  Even twins differ in disposition and mental capabilities.  In fact, one of the difficulties that attaches to parenthood is just this problem of making provision in one household for such various personalities.

A member of the stake presidency in one of the stakes in southern Utah, in discussing this matter a short time ago, remarked that in his family of four boys one very definitely had decided to become a farmer and was already busy at getting acquainted with the details of the work; a second boy was devoted to music and voiced a very vigorous protest against farming; the third son was so bashful and reticent that he hadn’t given expression to any notion of preference; the fourth, a happy-go-lucky sort of chap, free and noisy in his cutting up about the place, wasn’t worrying about what he was to do in life—­he just didn’t want anything to do with strenuous effort.

“How can I drive a four-horse team such as that?” was the interesting query of this father.

Practically every family presents this variety of attitude and practically every parent is trying to work out a solution to the problem, so there is nothing startling about the term individual differences.  Educators have just given the matter more careful and scholarly attention of recent years.

If the matter of differences in children constitutes a problem of concern in a family of from two to ten children, how much greater must that problem be in a class from thirty to fifty with approximately as many families represented.  The problem has led to some very interesting investigations—­investigations so simple that they can be carried on by anyone interested.  For instance, if we could line up all the men in Salt Lake City according to size we should find at one end of the line a few exceptionally tall men, likely from six feet to six feet six inches in height.  At the other end of the line would be a few exceptionally small men—­undersized men from three feet eight or ten inches to four feet six inches.  In between these two types would come in graduated order all sorts of men with a decidedly large number standing about five feet six or eight inches.  This latter height we call the average.

Practically we see the significance of these differences.  No manufacturer thinks of making one size of overall in the hope that it will fit each of these men.  He adapts his garment to their size, and he knows approximately how many of each size will be called for in the course of ordinary business.

If these same men could be taken one by one into a music studio and have their voices tested for range, the same interesting variations would be found.  There would be a few very high tenors, a few exceptionally low bassos, and a crowd with medium range with fillers-in all along the line.