Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Feb. 27, 1897, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
The Tar Heel, university of north Carolina. ; BOARD OF EDITORS. , Ralph H. Graves, - - Editor-in-Chief. ASSOCIATE EDITORS. T. L. Wright, - - - P.W.McMiu.lan, Burton Ckaigk. - - - W. .S. Myers, R. R. Lamb. - - - . - S. W. KENNEY, F. O. Rogers, - Business Manager, Published every Saturday by the General Athletic Association. SitbscriptloM Price. 1.50 per year. Payable in advance or durinp first term. Single Copies, 5 Cents. . i ,i or l..toi,d..rl fr tin) lkution should bead dressed 'to the Editor-in-chief and accompanied by ane i writer. Entered at the Post Office in Chapel Hill, :, second-class mall matter. N, C as It has reached our ears that some person, or persons, have ventured an assertion, the purport of which was that the Tar HEEL has become too much of a "kicker," and. that the said "kicking" has often been un warranted and inexcusable. In defence of ourselves against this charge, we desire to call atten tion to the fact that, if we have printed any articles of an abusive nature, they have been communica tions and have not come from any member of the staff. This paper is supposed to represent the opinions and sentiments of its supporters, viz., the students of this University. If we receive a communication purporting- to express the ideas of any considerable number of students, whether these ideas be favorable or unfavorable to the object of discus sion, we are not justified in prevent ing its publication, nor do we intend to do so. Some one may say that these com munications aire almost invariably in the shape of objections to some ex isting state of affairs. This is ex actly true. ; But we claim that, in every case, there have been express ed the sentiments of a large percen tage, if not a majority of the stu dents. They have the right and they ought to express themselves on any subject that affects them, nor do we believe that the faculty is averse to such expositions of our opinions, provided they represent an appreciable part of the whole body politic. . , Further,' we desire to state that, if any editorial has appeared, or ever does appear, in which is embodied any element of objection or any form of abuse, it has been, and will be, be cause we believe it to voice the sen timents of some considerable portion of the student body. Let our critic, or critics, take In to consideration, that his approval, does not necessarily represent or in fluence that of others, and that, even if he is displeased by "some of the Tar Heel's statements, it does not always follow that they are in compatible with the majority's ideas or unexpressive of the majori ty's opinions. And yet, even if some communlcat-.ons express the sentiments of a large minority, no reasonable person can object to it or hold the editors responsible, for it is our duty to conform to the wishes of our supporters, and, within the bounds of reason, to publish such articles as they may submit, to us. Some people are so prone to to "kick,'' that they oppose what ever does not emanate from their own brains. Such seem to be the li Societv "muck-a-mucks", who have displayed their brilliant genius by defeatmy the establishment or a magazine. The Phi Society took the lead in passing the magazine, report by a large majority, but all their good work is now nullified by some ma noevering syndicate in the other so ciety. It seems that we are doomed , not to have our 'literary publication, nor are we likely to carry out any progressive measure as loner as our controlling society politicians make it their chief aim to oppose every thing which they do not happen to have originated. For several years there have been efforts made to arrange for inter collegiate debates with some of our neighboring Universities, but until this spring no definite plan could be formulated. At present, however, our literary societies are negotiating- the matter with the University o f Georgia. Articles have already been drawn up, according to which there will be one debate each year and they only await ratification to become a per petual agreement. We should bv no means neglect this opportunity to promote the phase of our college life, which has been so long neglected, nor. must we remain longer behind our Northern friends by whom the debating con tests are held "with as much regu larity as the annual athletic meets. Base ball, foot ball and all kinds of physical sports are of immeasurable importance, but they must not be allowed to overwhelm and drive out all mental exercises. Let us hope that, when the first debate comes off, we shall prpve ourselves as expert in oratorical lines as we have been in "twirling" the baseball or buck ing; the centre. ' Our post-graduate courses are now open to women, which we hope, means that they will eventually be admitted into all departments. The principal objection to Chapel Hill at present is the lack of social train ing and experience. After staying here for four years, a boy is almost afraid of a dress. The advent of women into our midst will stimulate a desire for outward polish as well 5 mental culture, and ' will be a benefit to the University in every way. If any one desires local no tices inserted in any issue of the Tar HEEL, they will do well to hand in the same before Thursday. Other wise all space will probably be filled and the notices cannot be printed, We ought to have a new grand stand. It will be a digrace for us to exhibit our present roost to any visiting team. Let some one" start the ball and the boys will contrib ute enough to fix it. ' A good part of the Hcllcnian mat ter has gone to the press. The ed itors this year seem to be unusually alert in attending to their work and we have every reason to expect a splendid edition. Psychology. Under the above caption," there appeared in the last issue, bar one of the Tar HeEL, a severe criticism upon the method employed at this University in teaching psychology. It is not the purpose of this ar ticle to perpetuate a discussion, which we think should never have originated, nor is said article intend ed as a direct reply to the aforesaid criticism; but it proceeds only from a desire for justice, attendant upon the belief that should one side, of this question, alone, be presented, mis conceptions of the method employed in our "Psychology room" would mots probably result. We readily admit that Psychol ogy is the "bugbear of uudergrad uate students and the Jonah of the college curriculum," but we still fail most woefully in seeing that this fact indicates an incorrect method of teaching. Indeed, one who carefully reads the criticism, to which we have re ferred must necessarily wonder how such an idea was evolved by the writer himself, for speaking of the professor he says "He is an ex cellent psychologist, so far as we are able to judge. He is always log ical and concise, goes to the root of every problem and his lines of ar gument are always clear and im pregnable." The (Question naturally arises how the gentleman became aware of the prof's, knowledge of psychology? ; It is certainly a well known fact that knowledge radiates from the individual to individuals through the medium of objectivity. Fur thermore the "objective form" in this case must have been language and the mode of expression necessa rily clear and simple, since the"psy chologist" is termed "excellent." Again, what is meant by "lines of argument?" In the discussion of classroom method, it can mean nothing, we contend,-Vxcept the means, by which the instructor demonstrates the truth of his expla nation of the point in hand. There is no other possible deduction, so far as we are able to see: hence, having granted that they "are dear and impregnable," the idea contend ed in the following statement of the criticism that "He jumps, or steps upon wrhat we cau't see" is entirely precluded. The two statements are wholly irreconcilable, and the truth of the former renders the state of affairs implied by the latter entirely impossible. But admitting for the sake of ar gument that the latter is true, it proves absolutely nothing. For the later admission of the "Criticism" viz., "He" (the prof,) often asks if the point is clear, to all and invites discussion," proves conclusively that, in the opinion of the profess --f the key to the problem has been given; and for any man in the class who does not understand said prob' lent, to fail to ask for a more com plete explanation and then attempt to exculpate himself by the plea of modesty, is puerile in the extreme and reflects not the slightest dis credit upon the instructor. In brief, the gist of the Vkritik's" argument is that "Marks on psy chology are just indicators neither of brain"nor studiousness.To prove this he cites two men one with ability accompanied by application the other with neitherboth f whom obtained the same grade 0 examination. Now it is a thino-0f common knowledge that a grade on any examination is not necessarily a true exponent of one's knowwl of a subject but is indicative only 0f the value 0 his examination faftr A man, who knows a subject very well may be "blinded on exam. " and this is the logical explanation of the "brainy man's" iailure to ob tain a higher grade; for (as again confessed by the kritik), when at a later day he proved by his exami nation paper, that he did possess the. "subjective individuality" nec essary for a comprehension of pSy. cHology, he received the grade which his worth merited. What became of the man without brain or applica tion? Did he perform a like ascent? We venture to say not so. The illustrations cited, then, prove nothing. A scrupulous ex amination of the "College Record" will disclose parallel cases in almost every department. Why then this bitter protest against psychology? Why the complaint that ' 'good men" get poor marks while, with men of less than average ability, the re verse is true View the matter in another light and the question nat urally presents itself what consti tutes a "good man;" what a poor one? We think that it will be readily concecLd that. in the limited sphere of college lite, one is reputed to be "good" or "poor" according as he receives a low or high grade on ex aminations. Then, what process of reason warrants the conclusion that, of two men who obtain the same grade, tho' it may be on dif ferent studies say Latin and psy chologyone 'should be held good, the other poor? They have, both, displayed ability, tho' in different spheres; they have done equally well, tho' their respective aptitudes have been exhibited along' different lines. Whence the distinction? In other words, we contend that it is both unfair and unjust to brand "poor" upon a man simply because he failsNto receive a high grade on any of his , Freshman or Sophomore studies. Withhold your judge ment awhile, for "many men many minds" might be interpreted many men many aptitudes. It is too commonly known that a man may excel in languages and fail most ignominiously in mathe matics, and reversely. Is this prob lem "unfathomable?" We think not. The explanation is to be found in the diversity of individual tastes and aptitudes. If this is true of German and mathematics, why not equally true of either (or both) and psychology? For psychology i s amentally different from botn. he studies which one contends in the first two years of college rk, are largely "memory stud Not only is this true, but they are also a direct continuation in the branches which the student has been pursuing in the' preparatory school. He is at home, on familiar ground, and the man, who with a natural aptitude for such studies combines the additional advantage of thorough preparation finds no dif ficulty in achieving the highest distinction.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 27, 1897, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75