my observation goes, the girls lose nothing by being looked to as guardians of the social life of the group. Responsibility builds character, and in a mixed school each sex is charged with the responsibility of maintaining its own social status. This I consider a positive advantage, and one that should not lightly be set aside.

The school as a replica of community life. - School life in an American high school is the life of the community in miniature. If the community life is sound and healthy, the life of the school should be sound and healthy, too. When public opinion is weak or uncertain, however, there is a danger that the mixed school may suffer. Hence it is that the high school in one community may be easily managed and a model of propriety, while not far away another school may fall far short of the ideal. In a great city, for example, where pupils come from all classes and where the parents are flat-dwellers, knowing nothing of those who live on the other side of the partition, a controlling public opinion is out of the question. Pupils know each other only in school, and the gossip of the school does not penetrate the homes, because those at home do not know John or Sarah toward whom gossip is directed. Under such conditions the school is hampered by lack of restraining public opinion. It is natural, therefore, that parents should hesitate to send a daughter into a group of which they know little, but fear much. Such a situation invites opposition to coeducation, and the opposition naturally comes from the patrons of the school.

Physiological maturity. -The strongest argument for the separation of the sexes during the high-school age

comes from the difference in physiologic age. Girls mature earlier than boys. Girls of fifteen are a year or two ahead of boys of the same age, and the boys never catch up during the high-school period. The inferiority of the boys, socially and mentally, is noticeable in any high-school class. I speak, of course, in general terms. In every school some boy will be physiologically older and intellectually more alert than some girls, but in the large, the girls outstrip the boys. The result is a certain stagnation of the boy group, due in part to immaturity, and in part to the repeated failure to excel. When a boy gives up trying because some girl always wins, he soon acquires the habit of being satisfied to stay behind. It is a common saying among high-school teachers that girls learn more, but boys think better. But the boy who becomes accustomed to second place soon fails to think at his best. He marks time, and frequently does not wake up till he finds himself in college in an entirely different atmosphere, dealing with new subjects in open competition with his fellows.

Degrees of sensitivity. Some boys, a relatively large number, I fear, should be pushed harder in high school than is commonly the case with mixed classes. A hand heavy enough to be felt by boys of sixteen may be too heavy for the girls of the same class. The relatively greater sensitiveness of girls may be disputed, but I think most teachers will agree that girls are prone to take school work more seriously than boys.

Collegiate coeducation. Whatever the value of the argument for a separation of the sexes during the highschool period, it does not hold good for either the earlier

or later educational stages. I cannot see any inherent differences in college men and women, and I fancy no one finds them in the elementary school. Some women whom I know are physically stronger, intellectually keener, and spiritually more robust than some men of my acquaintance. I doubt whether there is any profession, or even manual vocation, that might not be better served by certain women than by many men. On the other hand, there are men who are essentially more feminine than some women; even the maternal instinct is better developed in some men than in many women. Our environment and occupation, quite as much as any inherited tendency or physical limitation, mold us into the shapes we take.

Equality of opportunity for similarity of aims. The doctrine of equality of opportunity a fundamental principle of American society, it seems to me --forces us to the conclusion that our school system must provide free and ample training for every boy and girl. If a boy and a girl aspire to professional service, there should be full equality of opportunity; so, too, if either wants to become a farmer, a builder, or a stenographer, the way should be open and the means available.

The obvious corollary of this proposition is that those whose aim is the same should have the same education. The woman who studies medicine, or teaching, or law, needs no specialized course of training because she is a Professional service is without distinction of Merchandizing, stenography - even laundering and dressmaking and dishwashing are not peculiarly feminine occupations. The man who wishes to excel in them must fit himself as does the woman.

woman.

sex.

I see no reason,

Opening the door to future needs. therefore, to modify a college-preparatory course to suit the needs of girls or boys; their needs are identical, so far as they go. The fact that two thirds of the girls will soon marry means that the career of the largest group in the school is definitely known; for them a specialized course is not only desirable, but it is almost criminal not to give it. But if any girl prefers Latin to cookery, and aspires to become a classical scholar rather than a domestic technician, I think she is entitled to all the help the school can give, and that what she gets should be what the boy with the same ambition gets. There is a study of science that leads to a sane understanding of the principles of nutrition and sanitation as required by the housewife, and there is a study of science that leads to the practice of medicine. The girl who is to marry should choose the one, and the girl who is to become a physician should take the other. It would doubtless strengthen the future housewife to take both, just as it would be well for the married physician to have both, but life is too short to do everything that one would like, or to get all the training that one should have. Choices must be made, and fortunate is the man or woman who chooses wisely. All that the school can do is to offer the widest possible range of choices, and to keep the door open toward future needs.

CHAPTER X

THE VITAL THINGS IN EDUCATION 1

OME time ago I was asked to address a convention

on the subject, "What are the vital things in the education of young women?" The topic was not of my choosing, but the question interested me. It should interest everyone, either teacher or parent. From the parent's standpoint it is oftentimes a very proper question to put. What have courses of study and methods of teaching to do with things that are vital in education? Where are the ablative absolute, the rule of three, and quadratic equations in such a scheme? Is there anything of more consequence than the ability to parse Paradise Lost," to spell Nebuchadnezzar, or to work every example in partial payments (every one, I mean, that the textbook gives no one ever saw the like outside a textbook)? To ask a pedagogue what is vital in education is a shrewd way of finding out whether he belongs to the union or not. Nevertheless, I told them plainly what I thought of the education of girls.

Problem of coeducation. Since then I have been thinking of what is vital in the education of boys. And I really cannot see where to draw the line. We want our girls to become women- the best possible women; and we want our boys to become men- the best possible

1 A revised reprint from GOOD HOUSEKEEPING, March, 1914, used by courtesy of the publishers.