Abstract
THE resolution of the Headmasters' Conference and Headmasters' Association, referred to in NATURE of January 9 (p. 379), that school instruction in natural science should include biology as well as chemistry and physics, reminds me of an impression which has been with me for some time that a similar reform is needed in our higher education. Arising, I suppose, from the curious notion that chemistry and physics are more exact and educative and of more general moment in the lives of animals than are botany and zoology, it is laid down at Oxford, for example, that a student who proposes to take a biological subject for his final school must pass an elementary examination in chemistry and physics, while if he specialises in chemistry or physics he is exempt from any preliminary course in biology. Something similar is, I believe, a pretty general regulation in all the universities in this country—and if not a regulation, at any rate a habit. The result is that a number of chemists are produced who are fearfully ignorant of the simplest truths of biology; they do not even know what biology is about or the general methods whereby a biologist will seek to solve his problems.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BOYCOTT, A. The Neglect of Biological Subjects in Education. Nature 102, 405 (1919). https://doi.org/10.1038/102405b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/102405b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.