I. That even with the widest range of variation the pattern of the lower molar teeth of man may be traced to a fundamental type named by Gregory the "Dryopithecus pattern."

2. That this pattern is recognized by a distinct number of cusps which must be accompanied by a definite system of grooves.

3. That certain changes appear which tend to modify the fundamental pattern in the lower molar teeth of man by a gradual and progressive process of evolution.

4. That these changes occur in four well-defined stages depending upon the modification of the system of furrows, the reduction in number of the main cusps or both.

5. That the different molars in the same dentition show changes different in kind and that like teeth in different racial groups show changes that are alike in kind but different in degree.

6. That as shown by the changes in crown pattern of the lower molar teeth, the most advanced stage is attained by the modern Whites; the most primitive stage is retained by the West African Negroes, the Mongols being intermediate.

This report is but a general survey of the extensive problem involved, and presents just a beginning of the studies to be pursued. A more detailed account will follow the completion of further investigations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In conclusion I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the American Museum of Natural History for the privileges given me to examine the von Luschan collection from which the West Africans and the Ancient Europeans were chosen for this study. Also to the Western Reserve University Medical School I am grateful for having had access to their skull collection of European Whites and American Negroes. At the United States National Museum I examined the Eskimos for which I am under great obligations. For all these privileges I can but express my sincerest thanks.

THE PRESENT STATUS OF RESEARCH IN EDUCATION

By FRANK PIERREPONT GRAVES

President of The University of the State of New York and New York
State Commissioner of Education

(Read April 21, 1928)

IN THESE days of scientific investigation it seems unfortunate and inconsistent that education, the basal science through which an understanding of all other lines is advanced, should have received so little recognition as a field of research. Not only has progress in this direction been given little encouragement; it has actually been met with ridicule, scorn, and deliberate hostility. Opposition has amounted almost to hysteria or obsession, as indicated by wholesale condemnations. in recent magazine articles and by frantic efforts on the part of certain faculty groups to prevent the selection of an Education man for the vacant presidency in any university. Much of this bitter antagonism is due to pure jealousy, for Departments and Schools of Education do largely occupy the center of academic attention at the present day, and professors of Education have of late years been selected as chief executives in a score of colleges and universities. Moreover, this is likely to continue until professors of the older subjects generally undertake to learn something about the aims and principles of education as a whole and to view academic questions from a more rational standpoint than that of mere tradition or their own narrow specialties. But it must be confessed that a goodly share of this abuse has been deserved, and that the educational guild today is only doing penance for past charlatanism, misdeeds, and overweening conceit. Cannot education somehow obtain a limited absolution and rehabilitate itself as a communicant? The day of the passé school superintendent in the West and of the 'white rat' psychologist in the East as an incumbent of the chair of

Education has long since passed, and there are hundreds of well-trained men now endeavoring to place educational research upon a safe and sane basis. It is high time to drop mountebankism and obstructionist tactics alike and to consider what can be done to make the subject reputable and strengthen its scientific methods.

Our first step is to note where the obstacles lie. What is it, then, that hinders this reputed pseudo-science from becoming genuine? If we compare the present situation of educational research with that of the recognized sciences, it will be seen that the field of research in education bristles with difficulties. Not the least of these is the fundamental fact that human intelligence, which conditions both the data and procedure of education, is exceedingly complicated. It does not lend itself to pigeon-holing and classification as readily as temperature, weight, or the force of the wind, and it cannot be meted and charted by the stethoscope, slide rule, or cymograph. Likewise the environment-physical, intellectual, and social-in which education has to "live, move and have its being," is varied, complicated, and filled with great differences.

Hence, in all his endeavors to fashion instruments of measure, the worker in educational research is "sore let and hindered" by obstacles of a degree and kind not encountered in other sciences. Yet the development of any science is dependent upon precision in measuring. Astrology never became astronomy, nor alchemy chemistry, until accurate standards and means of measurement were devised in their procedure. Geodetic surveying would never have been evolved, had we continued to measure the coast line with the revolutions of a cartwheel, as the Egyptians did, and the use of wampum as a medium of exchange indicates a very early

1 For some account of such efforts, read the addresses at the fiftieth anniversary conference of the Johns Hopkins University by George D. Strayer on "The Scientific Approach to the Problems of Educational Administration," and by William H. Burnham on "Scientific Progress in Education in the Last Fifty Years," and the address by Otis W. Caldwell, the chairman of Section Q, at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at Philadelphia, on "The Scientific Study of the Curriculum" (School and Society, 24: 623, 625, and 631).

stage in the march toward a science of finance. Until we know more definitely what education seeks, and until we can acquire greater accuracy in measuring intelligence and in measuring the products of education, we shall have great difficulty in securing for educational research a recognized position in the sisterhood of sciences.

As a result of the labors of such scientists as Terman, Haggerty, Dearborn, and Otis,1 numerous systems of intelligence tests have been formulated and standardized, and have proved of great value in the promotion and classification of pupils and in educational and vocational guidance. But we are not yet sure that we know just what factors enter into intelligence and need to be tested. In his "Educational Determinism" Bagley 2 tells us that all existing tests of intelligence fail to evaluate some very essential ingredients, such as moral qualities-integrity, industry, perseverance, courage, loyalty, and 'human' abilities-sense of humor, tact, sympathy, sociability. Link, on the other hand, in describing intelligence, holds that too much is being measured. He shows that 'intelligence,' or capacity to learn, is being measured by what we have already learned-that is to say, by the results of original intelligence plus something acquired, and that the Stanford tests, so widely used, fail of maximum validity because the opportunities for learning are in many states far inferior to those of California, where the tests were standardized.

We have also endeavored to make precise measures for achievement in various school subjects through 'scales' and 'tests.' A scale is a species of educational yardstick upon which samples of achievement in the skill or knowledge being measured take the place of the inch or half inch marks. These samples represent different degrees of ability, exactly ascertained and arranged, so that each is equidistant from

1

1 Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Tests (Houghton Mifflin, Boston); Haggerty Intelligence Examinations, Otis Group Intelligence Scales (World Book Co., Yonkers); and Dearborn Group Test of Intelligence (Lippincott, Philadelphia).

3

Bagley, William C.: "Determinism in Education" (Warwick, York, Baltimore).

3 Link, Henry C.: "What is Intelligence?” (Atlantic Monthly, September 1923).

the other by a definite degree of value. Thus the pupil's attainment can be indicated by position on the scale. Educational tests, on the other hand, consist of things to be done, of equal difficulty or of a relative degree of difficulty that has been previously established. Here the measure of a pupil's performance is determined by the number of units accomplished within a given time. Through these two devices. Thorndike, Ayres, Courtis, Buckingham, Gray, Monroe,1 and others have enabled us to measure handwriting, arithmetic, spelling, reading, English composition, drawing, literature, sciences, and foreign languages with some degree of success.

The difficulties in securing accuracy are enormous. Take, for example, what seems to be the simple matter of constructing a scientific scale or test in spelling. Not only have many remarkable minds 2 found in the difficulties which beset this task a foeman worthy of their steel, but it is to be admitted that the outcome has not yet been entirely satisfactory. In selecting the important words for measuring capacity, it is found that a list which proves an excellent measure in one community will scarcely serve at all in another. Though perhaps teaching the same list of words as a whole, communities do not teach the different parts of the list in the same order or at the same time of year. Moreover, the list that will test the reliability of a school or class will not answer at all for a given individual. Thorndike holds that one or two words from a standardized spelling list may be sufficient to test the capacity of a group of a thousand pupils, but to measure an individual's ability, fifty to one hundred words at least will be needed. To meet this situation, both

1 See Thorndike Handwriting Scale, Stone Reasoning Test (Teachers College, New York); Ayres Measuring Scale for Handwriting (Russell Sage Foundation, New York); Courtis Standard Research Tests (published by author, Detroit); ClevelandSurvey Tests in Arithmetic, Buckingham Scale for Problems in Arithmetic, Buckingham Extension of Ayres Spelling Scales, Monroe Timed Sentence Spelling, Gray Standardized Oral Reading Paragraphs, Monroe Standardized Silent Reading Tests (Public School Publishing Co., Bloomington, Ill.), etc.

2 Ayres Spelling Scale (Russell Sage Foundation, New York); Iowa Spelling Scales (Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City); Buckingham Extension of Ayres Spelling Scales, Monroe Timed Sentence Spelling Tests (Public School Pub. Co.); Courtis Standard Dictation Tests (Published by author, Detroit).