by the children; the principals and teachers are in most cases incompetent to make a wise choice for the pupils, as they are hardly ever sufficiently acquainted with the individual scholars.[1]Indeed, to make such a choice for the individual would require nothing less than "direct revelation from on high," as no man knows sufficiently the talent and possibilities that may lie dormant in the mind of a young student. If this system is the outcome of the much vaunted child study and pedagogical psychology, we have little reason to boast of this modern science. And we think those are amply justified who, against this "apotheosis of individual caprice," defend the old system which prescribes those branches that give a solid general training and thereby prepare the mind for taking up successfully any specialty in due time. The philosophical basis of this system is undoubtedly sound, whereas the elective system fully deserves the stigma of "philosophical anarchism".
We have purposely dwelt longer on the question of "electives," as a serious charge has recently been raised against the educational institutions of the Jesuits for not accepting the electivism of some modern reformers. After having quoted the opinions of leading educators on that subject, we may ask: Was
- ↑ Educational Review, January 1901. We may be excused for quoting the following lines from the same Review, May 1900, which not unaptly travesty the elective system:
Most pupils, like good-natured cows,
Keeping browsing and forever browse;
If a fair flower come in their way,
They take it too, nor ask, "what, pray?"
Like other fodder it is food,
And for the stomach quite as good.
