It has been remarked elsewhere that there are two general mind types, the liberal and the conservative. Also that the natural method of thought animating the former is inductive; while the natural method of thought of the latter is deductive. The “liberal” is the apostle of _new_ truth; the “conservative” an apostle of _safe_ truth. Both types are needed; the one to balance the other. In consequence both methods are of service in the class room; here each should be given its proportionate place. That this condition does not obtain may not be apparent, since much attention is being given to certain inductive forms, such as “proceeding from the concrete to the abstract,” “from the particular to the general,” “from the known to the related unknown,” etc. Likewise the courses of study and the various text books, claim to advocate the use of the inductive process. Seemingly these facts point toward a very general observance of the inductive tenets. This is true with one vital exception: Induction is the natural method of the discoverer. With it he _acquires_ knowledge; but in the class room induction is used to _impart_ knowledge. In life the discoverer takes the initiative, thinks his own thoughts first hand; but in the school room, above the kindergarten, the child is not allowed to take the initiative, not even in his play. All is planned for him, all doled out, not in the raw, but partially made over. The teacher must impart a certain amount of knowledge in a given time, and consequently she must “set the pace” in this race for _second hand facts_. To allow the child to lead; to give him the benefit of his own individuality; to permit him to use the God given spirit of discovery which clamors for recognition; would be suicidal according to our present standards. If the plan of the discoverer were followed, the course of study could not be covered; children would fail of promotion; and criticism would be forthcoming from both principal and parent.