PHILOSOPHICAL INSTITUTE.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 151, 27 November 1874, Page 3

PHILOSOPHICAL INSTITUTE.

A special meeting of the institute was held last Thursday at the Public Library. Present: —Revs C. Fraser, J. Buller, and W. J. Habens; Drs Powell, Turnbull, Buller, and Foster; Professor Bickerton, and Messrs H. J, Tancred, J. Inglis, R. W. Fereday, W. D. Carruthers, Inwood, Lewis, and C. M. Wakefield (hon sec). The chair was taken by Mr Fereday. Mr Inglis read a letter from Mr Maskell, complaining of the short notice that had been given of the meeting.

The Rev Mr Fraser read a notice on “ University Education.” A discussion of a very desultory nature followed, in which the paper read by the Rev Mr Fraser, and that “ On education,” read by Professor Bickerton at the previous meeting were touched upon. Dr Powell said there was one thing struck him, and that was the tendency of scientific writers on education to mix up primary with technical, and while acknowledging the high claim science had on education, they only taught it vaguely. If it was to be taught at all it should be taught as carefully as mathematics. Chemistry should be taught as itapproached an exactscience. Inlookingover their text books he saw how difficult it was teach physiology and zoology clearly and without vagueness, and he considered that human physiology should be one of the last sciences taught in schools. Professor Bickerton took exception to that portion of Mr Fraser’s paper which compelled a person to attend a college course in order to pass the examinations. He felt that five lectures a day were too many for anyone to have to attend, and considered three sufficient. He was of the opinion that the system of examination should commence with a large number of subjects, and lessen in number as the students found out what they were specially adapted for. Chemistry and physics should both be taught the first year, and natural history subjects should have a place in the curriculum. With reference to the terms mentioned in the Rev Mr Fraser’s papers, his (Professor Bickerton) experience as a teacher caused him to feel that if the year were divided into three short terms, with two long vacations, it would be an easier and better method. Dr Buller, speaking from experience, believed three lectures a day as much as even a grown man could do justice to. Drs Turnbull and Powell spoke from their recollection of having to attend six lectures a day, do hospital work, and attend the dissecting room besides. The Rev Mr Habens said the papers seemed to have been intended for two different classes of students. One, a schoolboy class, for whom four hours a day would be too short, and the other for students returning to college to improve their minds, who would have to deal with subjects for which four hours would be quite enough. Dr Foster said that his experience told him that when students attended class really to learn, three hours a day was quite hard enough, and even two. Mr Habens did not mean sitting down for four or five hours a day and listening to a

lecture on end, but to lectures of a conversational nature. The Rev Mr Fraser said that the superiority shown by German students in all classes of science was only due to a dogged and persevering system of study. The number of hours stated by him in his paper would be required to give a student, a thorough knowledge of the various subjects. At the request of some members, Professor Bickerton gave a resume of the paper read by him at the last meeting. Dr Turnbull disagree! with Professor Bickerton in the matter of prizes, as exhibitions, to his mind, were a great injustice to the community. The purpose of the Government in advancing education was not so much with the ol ject of o .taining a few brilliant beys as of educating the people. A few capable boys were advanced at the cost of the others, and he would prefer that each schoolmaster should be rewarded on the marks of the whole school in preference to those obtained by a few boys ; and though it was rather hard to alter a system, he believed a means might be found for rewarding those boys who had particularly distinguished themselves. He knew that a great deal of injustice was done to sluggish boys who at times perhaps only required the patient and careful attention of teachers to make them bright men. He deprecated extra subjects in the curriculum, as he thought a waste of time and ability, and those extra subjects to the detriment of the whole school. He objected to boarding schools being connected with large schools, as it was too much to expect masters who taught in school to look after the boys outside school hours. He had read Professor Bickcrton’a paper with very great pleasure, and no part more so than where he insisted on mechanical drawing forming a portion of the course, and he would like to see a school of science established here under the able supervision of the Professor himself. The Rev Mr Habens thought that if Professor Bickerton had pointed out the deficiencies in their present condition and shown them where they were deficient more discussion would have been provoked that evening. He (Mr Habens) approved of the system of checking every kind of work in schools, and a great deal of work done in their schools was not sufficiently checked. Professor Bickerton approved of the system of payment by results. In the system here there was no provision of that kind, and he (Mr Habens) wished there was. It had been suggested that a certain modicum of instruction should be given, and the other subjects paid for. He would believe in making their common schools as thorough going and as efficient as possible, and should desire as little as could be to have to be paid for any portion of the education of children. He agreed with Professor Bickerton in the large number of subjects, to be thinned out as the child showed a predilection and adaptability. He considered that the children in our common schools were starved by being kept to two or three dry subjects all day, and felt that elementary drawing should be imported into our present school teaching. Professor Bickerton briefly replied. He said he quite agreed with Dr Turnbull’s remarks with regard to scholarships alone, and when the results were not tested by the scholarships, but by the general examination of pupils the exhibitions merely afforded a means to poor boys of ability to attain a high-class education. The Rev Mr Fraser, in the course of his remarks in reply, said that although Professor Hickerton’s paper appeared to be somewhat ambitions, it really showed the relations of education generally. The meeting then adjourned.