were taught through a situation in building, engineering, or
mechanics so that the student would at all times see the intimate
relation between mathematical law and physical forces? Would not the
disciplinary values of mathematics be intensified for the student by
teaching it in a way that presents a quantitative interpretation of
the daily phenomena in his experience?

Teachers of philosophy and psychology too often fall into a formalism
that robs their subject of all its vitalizing influences. Many a
student enters his course in logic with high hopes. At last he is to
learn the laws of thought which will render him keen in detection of
fallacies and potent in the presentation of argument. How bitter is
his disappointment when he finds his course dissipated in definitions
and classifications. His logic gives itself to the discussion of such
patent fallacies as, "A good teacher knows his subject; Williams knows
his subject, therefore he is a good teacher." Day after day he proves
the error in every form of stupidity or the truth of what is
axiomatic. He tires of "Gold is a metal" and "Socrates is mortal." Few
courses in logic have the courage to break away from the traditional
formalism and to begin each new principle or fundamental concept of
logic by analyzing editorials, arguments, contentions in newspapers,
magazines, campaign literature, or the actual textbooks. Few students
complete their course in logic with a keener insight into thought and
with a maturer or more aggressive mental attitude.

=Beginning at the point of contact relates the subject to the life of
the student=

It was pointed out in a previous illustration that the college student
"taking philosophy" is seldom made to feel that the subject he studies
is related to the problems that arise in his own life. Too frequently
introductory courses in philosophy are historical and extensive in
scope, striving to develop mastery of facts rather than to give new
viewpoints. The student learns names of philosophers, and attempts to
memorize the philosophic system developed by each thinker. Such a
course imposes a heavy burden on retentive power, for no little effort
is required to remember the distinctive philosophical systems
advocated by the respective writers. To the students these
philosophers represent a group of peculiar people differing one from
the other in their degrees of "queerness." One system is as far
removed as another from the life that the