WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE.

President Conant, in announcing a new Ph.D. degree in the "History of Science and Learning." has once again revealed the essential wisdom as well as the superficial inconsistency of University policy. Unanswerable arguments are advanced proving the cultural and intellectual value of courses in the history of science, yet they correspond almost exactly with those used to support the elementary science requirement. Thus it is patently necessary to broaden that requirement and to apply to the College a change of emphasis similar to that announced for the Graduate School.

While a knowledge of scientific methods is obviously a necessary element in education for modern life, this does not imply that one need have a zealot's interest in test-tubes and formulas, stresses and strains. For those whose passions are not aroused by the precise caress of the scientific goddess, little is gained by the manipulation of complex gadgets in the laboratory. A study of the history and philosophy of science would be for them far more significant.

Machinery for such a change in the requirement is available in two excellent half-courses, professor Henderson's "History of the Physical and Biological Sciences before 1700" and Dr. Sarton's continuation of this subject through the 18th and 19th centuries. By combining these into a single course meeting the distribution requirement, and by eliminating the prerequisite of one half-course in a science that now limits them both, a more intelligent and consistent policy would result. The only logical alternative is complete elimination of the science requirement.