on the present system, and would prevent students leaving too much of their work undone till the last year.
Thirdly, it seems to me of great importance that the number of subjects examined upon at the same time should, in some instances, be reduced. The original idea of the London University in arranging the subjects for the examination of M. D. was excellent—namely, to spread them over a sufficient number of years and to present them successively in a natural order of gradation. But, now that the mass of knowledge demanded has so vastly increased, this division of labor only partially meets the difficulty of the student, for he has now to be prepared to answer questions in the course of a few days which demand a painful retention of an enormous number of facts in the memory. Some relief would be obtained here by a longer interval being allowed between the days of examination on different subjects.
In the recent discussion on medical education to which I have referred, Mr. Huxley urged that one mode of relieving the present strain would be to make the preliminary subjects (in an elementary form) necessary parts of school education. Thus a boy ought to know a bone or a muscle when he sees it. My fear is that by so doing we should intensify the labors of school-work, unless it is on the distinct understanding that these subjects are not added to, but take the place of, some which are now taught at school; otherwise it is merely cutting off one end of the plank and fastening it on to the other. Mr. Huxley's proposition assumes, of course, that it is well to introduce these studies into schools as a part of the education of all, whether intended for the medical profession or not.
Fourthly, whatever course is adopted, it is, I would hope, unnecessary to say that the crotchets of individual examiners should not tinge the questions, or rather the judgment formed of the answers. If the questions which are now asked are not too severe when taken alone, they are regarded by many competent judges as frequently too severe when taken in combination with the other subjects examined upon, and also that they are sometimes calculated to puzzle the student, from the form in which they are worded. Not long ago an examiner at the London University, speaking to another examiner, boasted of the puzzling questions he had been ingenious enough to ask, whereupon the other replied, to my great satisfaction, "You should try and find out how much, not how little, the students know." I should have no fear of the questions being unreasonable when put by a wise, common-sense Professor like this, whereas some learned men expect a student to reach in a few months the level of their own mature knowledge.
I would adopt the language, once more, of Professor Humphrey, and say: "With Democritus 'we should strive not after fullness of knowledge, but fullness of understanding'; that is, that we should strive for good, clear, solid, intelligent, producible, and available knowledge, of the kind that will be useful in after-life; not so much the re-
