prehensive training of the pupil in the study of the record of man. Completeness of living, necessitates a mind of poise rather than one stocked with cold, bare facts. The teaching of history in the schools should have for its motto: "quality not quantity; growth not grind; development and not a spongelike absorption." And in the ultimate this power will mean: power to see the revealed truth of Him in whom, "we live and move and have our being." In working toward this end, the true aim of real education, indeed of real life, is being made the goal. The finite mind is progressing to its divinely appointed end; the full understanding of the infinite, the attaining of the standard of Christ, the qualitative standing on par with God. And when this final step in the evolution of man has been made, then indeed social efficiency has been obtained.

The Logical Problem of Coeducation

PROFESSOR HERBERT P. PATTERSON, PH. D., MITCHELL, SOUTH

P

DAKOTA.

¤ ERHAPS there is no one educational problem over which more discussions arise than that of coeducation. It is ever reappearing, and yet never solved. Not only do thinking people at large differ in their attitude toward coeducation, but educators themselves are unable to agree as to its proper place in educational systems. In practice there appears to be quite as much variety as in theory, and arguments based upon specific illustrations are offset by arguments based upon equally specific illustrations of an opposite character.

In the midst of such apparent confusion, a logical analysis of the problem should prove of value. If our thoughts upon this perplexing problem can be clarified but a little, some progress will have been made toward a better understanding of the real issue and hence toward the true solution.

In Plato's Republic-which Rousseau has called "the finest treatise on education ever written,"-it is maintained that the education of women should be similar to that of men. The reason for this similarity of education is the essential similarity of their natures. Whatever difference of nature exists between man and woman is merely quantitative and not qualitative, according to Plato.

"Do we divide dogs into he's and she's, and take the masculine gender out to hunt, or have them to keep watch and ward over the flock, while we leave the females at home, under the idea that the bearing and suckling their puppies hinder them from sharing in the labors of the males? No, he said, they share alike; the difference between them is only one of strength and weakness. Then if women are to have the same duties as men, they must have the same education? Yes. All the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, and in all of them a woman is only a lesser man. You would admit that the same education which

makes a man a good guardian will make a woman a good guardian; for their original nature is the same? Yes."

Aristotle, however, did not agree with his master in regard to the proper education of woman. The natures of man and woman, thought Plato's famous pupil, are essentially different, and accordingly their education should differ. Instead of a mere quantitative dissimilarity between the sexes, Aristotle holds to a real qualitative difference. In the Politics, he writes as follows:

"So it is naturally with the male and the female; the one is superior, the other inferior; the one governs, the other is governed. The temperance of a man and a woman are not the same, nor their courage, nor their justice, though Socrates thought otherwise; for the courage of the man consists in commanding, the woman's in obeying; and the same is true in other particulars. . . . The temperance and courage of a man and a woman are different from each other; for a man would appear a coward who had only that courage which would be graceful in a woman, and a woman would be thought a talker who should take as large a part in the conversation as would become a man of consequence. The domestic employments of each of them are also different; it is the man's business to acquire subsistence, the woman's to take care of it."

The logical problem of coeducation may be found by comparing these two positions. Is the chief difference between man and woman merely quantitative, as Plato asserts it to be, or is there a real qualitative difference, as Aristotle maintains? Upon the answer to this question depends the general attitude toward coeducation. For if the male and female natures are qualitatively alike, then it is possible to educate both in one way; but if there are two different natures to be educated, there is need of two separate types of education.

Stated in other terms, the question comes to be this:-Are man and woman to be thought of as a single species under the broad genus "animal nature" with common characteristics which distinguish them from lower animals, or are they to be thought of as two separate classes under the common species "human nature" with diverse qualities which, while complimentary, are yet different and requiring separate types of education? These two classifications of the sexes are not wholly incompatible, and it is possible to harmonize them in a more comprehensive conception. There is

a tendency, however, to over-emphasize either the similarities that exist between man and woman or their dissimilarities, and it is this tendency which is largely responsible for division of opinion upon the question of coeducation.

The difficulty would not be so great if it were possible to determine which were the more important—the similarities or the dissimilarities. The facts seem to be that many important differences between the sexes exist, and quite as many and as important similarities. One is forced to recognize the three natures: "manly nature," "womanly nature," and "human nature". "Human nature is inclusive of qualities common to both man and woman, while "manly nature" and "womanly nature" are expressive of divergent qualities. The logical problem, then, comes to be the relating properly in a scheme of education these three "natures".

In any definite attempt thus to relate these "natures", the time element must be taken into account, and a psychology which gives emphasis to growth regarded as basic. While it is probably true that at all ages of life these "natures" are to be found present, it is not necessarily true that the same importance is to be attached to each throughout the life process. There is the possibility that at certain ages the "human nature" will be relatively stronger than the "manly" and "womanly" natures, while at other ages the reverse may be true. The place to be occupied by coeducation in any general system of education, then, would not be a constant, but rather a variable, and the actual amount of coeducation at any given time would be directly proportional to the amount of "human nature" and inversely proportional to the amount of "manly" and "womanly nature" present.

If, for example, the genetic type of psychology be assumed as fundamentally correct in its contention that growth is a process of individuation, then "womanly nature" and "manly nature" would be viewed as gradual emergencies from an earlier "human nature" common to both. Such a process seems to be symbolized in our language, the terms "child" and "children" being used for several years before the terms "boys" and "girls" completely displace them, if, indeed, they ever do before the time comes for such terms as "youth" and "maiden", "young man” and "young lady". The divergence of the sexes begins to appear quite clearly at the period of adolescence, a period characterized by

the numerous changes, both physiological and psychological, which are taking place. If, then, education is to take advantage of the natural development, this age of adolescence seems to be the appropriate time for properly shaping the "womanly nature" and the "manly nature" according to such ideals of womanhood and manhood as are able to be formulated by educators. Since the "womanly nature" and "manly nature" are expressive of the dissimilarities between the sexes, it appears that the later stages of our educational systems should tend to be less coeducational. The curricula for the two sexes would diverge more and more; the education of womanhood would not aim to duplicate with exactness the education of manhood, but rather seek to realize its own proper ideals. The secondary and higher institutions of learning would cease attempting to eradicate the differences between the "womanly" and the "manly" natures; no longer would efforts to compromise result in the failure to realize the ideal education for either. Some of the differences between the sexes which hitherto have been largely ignored would receive their proper emphasis.

That more separation of the sexes will find its way into our educational systems is a safe prophecy. The steadily increasing stress upon vocational training already has tended to emphasize the need of separate classes for boys and girls. The impossibility of giving instruction in sexual morality to coeducational classes points to the same need. The growing idea of the importance of physical education, and the impossibility of giving the same physical training to both sexes, argues for more separation. Are not all of these indicative of the failure to emphasize properly the education of the "manly nature" and the "womanly nature"? The movement which lies immediately before us appears to be away from "human nature" and coeducation toward the "womanly" and "manly" natures and more separation of the sexes. Complete separation, however, is quite as illogical as complete coeducation, and the pendulum must never rest at either extreme position. In the desire to train the "manly nature" and the "womanly nature" we must not lose sight of the common nature which both possess.

The ideal education includes all three "natures", and the logical problem of coeducation will always be the search for their true relationship. The opposite positions of Plato and Aristotle must be harmonized in an education which, while favoring neither, includes both.